A Catholic Understanding of Mary

[Guest]

Semantics... It doesn't make a difference what part of speech "until" is. When you use it in a sentence, it doesn't HAVE to refer to something in the future...

And how about this verse?

Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death. 2 Sam 6:23

The parrot will probably say that Michal gave birth to children AFTER her death... Anyone who still has problems with this is merely spouting off the party line rather than listen to common sense.

I adjure you, fellow Christians. Use some common sense here.

Regards

How can you call it SEMANTICS?

To understand the word "until" - you NEED to learn the manner in which it is being used: The PART OF SPEECH!

For example:

I slept until 10pm. - does this mean that I continued sleeping AFTER 10pm? Or does it mean I was sleeping and when it turned 10pm - I woke up?


In regards to 2 Sam. 6:23 - it says:

"Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death."

To completely understand this verse, it is important that Michal did not have any children - because they could claim to be the rightful heir to the throne. But we know that David was to become the rightful ruler.

Yes - knowing the PART OF SPEECH is imporant to understanding the meaning of the word. It is not SEMANTICS.

Rather, I would charge you with using semantics in an effort to twist the Scripture to fit your beliefs, rather than using the Bible to shape your beliefs.

 

[Heidi]

How can you call it SEMANTICS?

To understand the word "until" - you NEED to learn the manner in which it is being used: The PART OF SPEECH!

For example:

I slept until 10pm. - does this mean that I continued sleeping AFTER 10pm? Or does it mean I was sleeping and when it turned 10pm - I woke up?


In regards to 2 Sam. 6:23 - it says:

"Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death."

To completely understand this verse, it is important that Michal did not have any children - because they could claim to be the rightful heir to the throne. But we know that David was to become the rightful ruler.

Yes - knowing the PART OF SPEECH is imporant to understanding the meaning of the word. It is not SEMANTICS.

Rather, I would charge you with using semantics in an effort to twist the Scripture to fit your beliefs, rather than using the Bible to shape your beliefs.

Paul tells us not to quibble about words. That's what Bill Clinton did when trying to pass along his lies also. In fact, trying to redfine simple words that we use in everyday life is one of the first tactics that Satan entices us to use when trying to keep us from believing the simple words in the bible. :

 

[Guest]

Paul tells us not to quibble about words. That's what Bill Clinton did when trying to pass along his lies also. In fact, trying to redfine simple words that we use in everyday life is one of the first tactics that Satan entices us to use when trying to keep us from believing the simple words in the bible. :

I do not believe that Clinton is the only politician who attempts to re-define and find loopholes. This administration has been good at it too.

Reading the Bible is like reading any other book - one needs to use the rules of grammar, recognize parts of speech, etc.

 

[francisdesales]

Paul tells us not to quibble about words. That's what Bill Clinton did when trying to pass along his lies also. In fact, trying to redfine simple words that we use in everyday life is one of the first tactics that Satan entices us to use when trying to keep us from believing the simple words in the bible. :

So why are you quibbling? The Bible has the word "until" meaning different things. So stop trying to assign it a meaning that you cannot prove. The first readers of the Gospels considered that Mary was an everlasting virgin. It is only you 2000 years removed without a shred of evidence that quibbles about the idea that Mary MUST have had sex with Joseph. Stick to the tabloids... There is plenty of sex there for you if you insist that everyone is doing it.

 

[Guest]

So why are you quibbling? The Bible has the word "until" meaning different things. So stop trying to assign it a meaning that you cannot prove. The first readers of the Gospels considered that Mary was an everlasting virgin. It is only you 2000 years removed without a shred of evidence that quibbles about the idea that Mary MUST have had sex with Joseph. Stick to the tabloids... There is plenty of sex there for you if you insist that everyone is doing it.

Where the first readers ever wrong?

 

[francisdesales]

Where the first readers ever wrong?

Individually, sure. Not as an organization (Church) because the Church is protected by God and is infallible on matters of faith and morals.

If you disagree with this, then how do you say a fallible body, the Church organization (according to you) made an infallible product, the Bible? That is special pleading. Only an infallible organization can create an infallible product.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I do not believe that Clinton is the only politician who attempts to re-define and find loopholes. This administration has been good at it too.

Reading the Bible is like reading any other book - one needs to use the rules of grammar, recognize parts of speech, etc.

That is true. And one must also recognize genre and so forth, as well. What one must realize, however, is that the Bible can be interpreted many different ways.

"If only we could know which one is the correct interpretation. How do I know if I am right while the guy at the 2nd Baptist church down the street is wrong?" says each Protetant pastor to himself...

That is what Marcus Grodi said before he decided to come to Rome and give up his Presbyterian pastorship.

Regards

 

[Guest]

Individually, sure. Not as an organization (Church) because the Church is protected by God and is infallible on matters of faith and morals.

If you disagree with this, then how do you say a fallible body, the Church organization (according to you) made an infallible product, the Bible? That is special pleading. Only an infallible organization can create an infallible product.

Regards

With God all things are possible. He can use the enemies of Israel wanting to curse Israel to actually Bless Israel.

God is able to use even a falliable organization to create something infalliable.

I see the Bible has ordained by God, protected by God, written by God, you subsitute the Roman Catholic Denomination for God.

If I say I slept until 10pm. Does that mean I woke up after 10, or that I kept on sleeping?

 

[francisdesales]

With God all things are possible. He can use the enemies of Israel wanting to curse Israel to actually Bless Israel.

LOL! I can use that with the Protestant Reformation. God allowed a great evil to bring about the required changes in His Church...

God is able to use even a falliable organization to create something infalliable.

Again, special pleading. How do you know that the Bible is infallible and the Church is fallible? According to the Bible, the CHURCH is infallible, the pillar and foundation of the Truth. The Bible never makes that claim for itself. It is the CHURCH that makes that claim. If the Church is fallible, then that claim is NOT infallible, since then you wouldn't know WHAT God is "using" to do what.

I see the Bible has ordained by God, protected by God, written by God, you subsitute the Roman Catholic Denomination for God.

All presumptions based on the circular argument that the compiled bible is the Word of God. It is the Church that put together the Table of Contents. The inspired Word of God doesn't list it. Thus, how does a fallible organization vouch for an infallible book? How do you KNOW that Philemon is part of the Word of God? You are using special pleading. Plus, you would be ignoring the Scriptures themselves that vouch for the Church.

If I say I slept until 10pm. Does that mean I woke up after 10, or that I kept on sleeping?

How about someone who dies in their sleep?

Regards

 

[Guest]

Fran -

I asked a VERY SIMPLY question. Your DODGING is very telling that you know the answer and do not want to give the answer.

AGAIN, I will ask ONE MORE TIME.

If I told you that "I slept until 10pm" - what does that mean?

Since I am the one telling - I obvisiously did not die in my sleep.

Again: "I slept until 10pm"

Does that mean I woke up at 10pm or that I kept on sleeping?

Simple question with a simple answer. Try not to complicate it, k?

 

[Vic C.]

... To prove you do not have a clue on the use of the word "until", I will give you an example of how you presume too much.

Afterwards the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father, when he shall have brought to nought all principality, and power, and virtue. For he must reign, until he hath put all his enemies under his feet 1 Cor 15:24-25.

Does this mean, according to your logic, that Christ will cease to reign AFTER all enemies are put under His feet?

Enough said. Case closed. You don't have any proof for your case from the Bible alone.

Case reopened. Joe, you picked a bad example. This verse means exactly what you suggested Javier's logic would suggest. By taking the two verses out of context and ignoring similar references in the latter part of Revelation, you missed this passage's meaning.

Lets read a little farther down:

1 Cor 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1 Cor 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1 Cor 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. (ref. Rev 20:14, 1 Cor 15:54)
1 Cor 15:27 For He hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted, which did put all things under Him.
1 Cor 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

At the end of the Millennial Kingdom, after death and hell are destroyed, after death is swallowed up in victory, the Son returns power and reign to the Almighty. In plain English, the Gingdom is returned to the Father. I know you may be amillennial, but nonetheless, this IS what Scripture says.

You see, even Messiah will be subjected to our Creator.


BTW, 2 Samuel 6:23 does not have the word "until" in it.

(KJV) 23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

I am not aware of "until" being in any translation. Young's literal does use "till"; but even that word does not mean until in this instance.

 

[cyberjosh]

I have a question about the role of Mary in the RCC which I am actually curious about. I understand that RCC allows veneration of Mary, but do Catholics admit that one does not have to venerate her? If not then what kind of compulsory doctrine is presented to venerate her? I do not venerate the 12 Apostles for any of their deeds or elevate anyone of them above the others (though I have my personal favorites - who set an example in my eyes). I do not need, however to even include such veneration in my private nor corporate worship sessions. Just like Romans talks about how one man may esteem one day above another I would say one man may esteem another person above another (in his opinions), but it is his personal belief and opinion, not a law or anything necessarily innatly deserving or compulsory of the believer to believe in, other than as a role model perhaps.

What alleged consequences if any would be levied for not venerating Mary? A slap on the hand at judgement day?

~Josh

 

[Drew]

I find that Vic's argument indeed works in that it shows how the "Javier" interpretation of "until" is not contradicted by the 1 Cor text. However, I am not sure that this issue has been solved. I still see a way that the "Mary was a virgin throughout her life" position can survive the effects of Matthew 1:25. I am not saying that I believe this, but rather that Matthew 1:25 in particular does not rule this out.

It seems at least plausible that the gospel writer's intent was to make it clear that Jesus was not the product of a human father. So, quite naturally, Matthew wants to underscore that up to the point of Jesus' birth, Mary did not have intercourse with Joseph. To be fair, we need to ask what linguistic tools were available to him to send this message. Matthew wants to clearly demarcate a time interval that ends with the birth of Jesus. What happens after the birth of Jesus is not relevant to the point I have assumed Matthew had in mind - to emphasize that Jesus' father is not Joseph but God.

It seems natural enough to use the word "until" to demarcate this end point. He may not have had any intent to imply that sexual relations resumed after that point.

Let's say that "Fred" suspects that his wife has cheated on him and a baby has resulted from the illicit union. Let's say that Fred is also interested in proving in court that he did not father the baby "Jane" who was born on, say, May 1, 2007. Fred might protest in court as follows "I did not have intercourse with my wife from August 1 2006 (9 month before Jane is born) until May 1, 2007. Does this suggest that intercourse resumed after 1 May 2007?

I do not think that it does. Fred and his wife might have a sexless marriage and Fred's use of the word "until" served a very specific purpose - to demarcate a specific point in time that is relevant to a specific issue - whether Fred could be the father of Jane.

So to say that person "X" ceased doing activity "Y" until time "Z" does not imply that X resumed doing Y after Z.

 

[cyberjosh]

Drew,

Would you mind tackling my question as well?

 

[Drew]

Drew,

Would you mind tackling my question as well?

I am not RCC and I know almost nothing about that branch of the church. You may have drawn the conclusion that I am RCC from my post that could be seen as sympathetic to the position that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life.

In fact, I have no opinion on what Scripture teaches on the matter. I was simply interested in seeing if Matt 1:25 really implies that Mary and Joseph had relations after the birth of Jesus.

So, in short, I am not in any position to comment on your question.

As stated in an earlier post, I think that if Mary did indeed remain a virgin, this sends the "virginity good, sex bad" message. Francesdesales, however, has pointed out that the same case could be made based on Paul's teachings....

 

[jgredline]

Drew
if you go back and read my post you will see that The Greek word that is used for relations is ''γινώσκω''...This word is a
Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman...Now this word sets the context of the rest of the verse....

Really this is as ''alone voice'' has pointed out, very basic grammar...that even a beaner like me understands....and English is not even my first language...

25 He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

Now for ''my'' paraphrase

He had no sexual intercourse until after Jesus was born, and then it was on : ......

Now what is so difficult about this to understand?

 

[Drew]

Drew
if you go back and read my post you will see that The Greek word that is used for relations is ''γινώσκω''...This word is a
Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman...Now this word sets the context of the rest of the verse....

Really this is as ''alone voice'' has pointed out, very basic grammar...that even a beaner like me understands....and English is not even my first language...

25 He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

Now for ''my'' paraphrase

He had no sexual intercourse until after Jesus was born, and then it was on : ......

Now what is so difficult about this to understand?

How, precisely, does any of the above render my argument invalid? This is not an issue of "simple grammar". The argument turns on whether "until" as in "X abstained from Y until Z" necessarily implies that X performed Y after Z. I believe my argument shows that there is no necessary implication to this effect at all.

 

[Vic C.]

I find that Vic's argument indeed works in that it shows how the "Javier" interpretation of "until" is not contradicted by the 1 Cor text. However, I am not sure that this issue has been solved. I still see a way that the "Mary was a virgin throughout her life" position can survive the effects of Matthew 1:25. I am not saying that I believe this, but rather that Matthew 1:25 in particular does not rule this out.

Thanks Drew. My main motive for what I posted was to take that Cor. passage out of the "equation"; out of the argument. It's debatable among Pre and Post Millenialists, but I didn't think it applied here.

 

[jgredline]

How, precisely, does any of the above render my argument invalid? This is not an issue of "simple grammar". The argument turns on whether "until" as in "X abstained from Y until Z" necessarily implies that X performed Y after Z. I believe my argument shows that there is no necessary implication to this effect at all.

Then I guess it is you and Joe who do not see it....You can only beat a dead horse so long....and if until means never to you, then there is nothing I can say that will change your mind...

 

[Drew]

Then I guess it is you and Joe who do not see it....You can only beat a dead horse so long....and if until means never to you, then there is nothing I can say that will change your mind...

Of course, I never wrote that "until" means "never" in all cases.

I have merely argued that one cannot use rigid definitions to interpret words. Context is important. I believe that I have given a clear example of how the word "until" can be used in the context of "X abstained from Y until Z" without carrying the implication that X engaged in Y after Z.

I think that the example is clear. Is the example wrong? If so. how?