A Catholic Understanding of Mary

[jgredline]

This is beyond silly and for the life of me, I do not know why I am wasting my time when I could be working.... :roll:

Drew...Let me ask you a very simple question....A yes or no answer will do.

In the context of matt 1:25....

If you were reading it for the sake of learning....Would you agree that ''until'' means they had sex after a certain amount of time passed by?

Yes or no will do....

 

[Drew]

Your silly 2 Sam verse illustration proves the point that you are taking the passage out of context. Of course no-one can have children after death - therefore you are attempting to build strawman arguements in an effort to prove your point. This is disengenious at best, and at worst a deliberate attempt to twist Scripture to fit your needs.

I think that the 2 Sam text strongly supports the position that Fran and I are taking here. We are not the ones who arguing that the nature of the word "until" demands a certain strict interpretation in all uses. I believe that this is what you and jg are doing - using the "part of speech" argument and the "dictionary definition" argument as if the dictionary defintion and the part of speech fully determined the sense with which the word is used in all circumstances.

By showing how context can clearly alter the meaning of the word "until", Fran, in his scriptural examples, and I, in my non-scriptural ones, are showing the plasticity of use of the word "until" - sometimes it clearly does not have the "state-transition" sense that you and others argue are bundled up in the definition of the word and the part of speech it plays.

The 2 Samuel case is a perfect example - it shows that, if context warrants (such as the obvious impossibility of having children after death), the word "until" does not necessarily imply a transition of state such as the transition from virginity to non-virginity.

 

[Vic C.]

Drew -

Last night I slept until 10am.

What time did I wake up?

:o

LOL... actually, this question can't even be answered. It's impossible to sleep until 10 A.M. last night. Night is P.M., not A.M. :P

All kidding aside, this is a silly argument. It doesn't affect one bit who Jesus was and most importantly, what He did for us. :angel:

 

[Drew]

This is beyond silly and for the life of me, I do not know why I am wasting my time when I could be working.... :roll:

I agree that it is silly. A prepoderance of clear examples, both from the Bible and real life have been given wherein 'until' clearly does not connote a transition of state. Does anyone dispute the correctness of any of these examples?

Drew...Let me ask you a very simple question....A yes or no answer will do.

In the context of matt 1:25....

If you were reading it for the sake of learning....Would you agree that ''until'' means they had sex after a certain amount of time passed by?

Yes or no will do....

I am not crazy about how the question is framed. If I had never read the Bible in my life and you handed me a piece of paper with the sentence "But Joseph had no union with Mary until she gave birth to a son.", I would agree that they has sex after a certain amount of time passed by.

But, of course, we have to consider the context. And context suggests the clear possibility that the gospel writer is trying to emphasize the divinity of Jesus' father. I think this is accomplished more effectively by focusing in on the period up to Jesus birth and emphasizing the absence of intercourse during that time - hence the use of the word "until" to simply demarcate the end of that time interval.

Lets say that Matthew knew that Mary never had relations in her entire life (which is what Fran apparently believes). Matthew could, of course, have written; "And Joseph never had union with Mary" and this discussion would not be taking place. But such a form of expression would not focus in on the specific time interval that ends with Jesus' birth - and it is this time interval that might have been relevant to the goal of demonstrating Jesus' divine Father.

 

[Guest]

:o

LOL... actually, this question can't even be answered. It's impossible to sleep until 10 A.M. last night. Night is P.M., not A.M. :P

All kidding aside, this is a silly argument. It doesn't affect one bit who Jesus was and most importantly, what He did for us. :angel:

The last night implies that I went to bed in the PM (night) - I then slept throughout the night until 10am the next morning. (hence AM).

However, you are correct - it does not affect who Christ is.

However, it does affect the inaccurate veniration of Mary.

 

[jgredline]

Drew
I knew a no or yes answer would be too difficult for you, but

But, of course, we have to consider the context. And context suggests the clear possibility that the gospel writer is trying to emphasize the divinity of Jesus' father.

Yes, I agree......

I think this is accomplished more effectively by focusing in on the period up to Jesus birth and emphasizing the absence of intercourse during that time -

Yes, so far so good....

hence the use of the word "until" to simply demarcate the end of that time interval.

Yes, this is true, very true but then what happened when that time passed? What is the text implying?...What is the Gospel writer saying happened after that time?

 

[aj830]

cool, then you agree that she had sex with her husband....Now you see that was not hard....

The Greek word for until is ἕως This word in the Greek is a conjunction...

No. I said in with this verse alone that nothing is certain afterward. She could have, she could have not. You need more information than that.

This verse on its own can tell us nothing about their marital relations after Jesus' birth.

K. Sorry about that :D I forgot prepositions could be used as subordinate conjuctions anyway but it still doesn't change the fact of the verse.

 

[Drew]

deletd post

 

[Drew]

hence the use of the word "until" to simply demarcate the end of that time interval.

Yes, this is true, very true but then what happened when that time passed? What is the text implying?...What is the Gospel writer saying happened after that time?

The whole point of my posts (and now those of Fran) is that there may be no implication at all as to what happens after that time.

We have shown repeatedly that the word "until" as in the sentence "Situation X existed until time Y" does not necessarily connote any change at all to situation X after time Y. In many cases, such an implication is justified (e.g. I slept until 9 AM). In the examples that Fran and I have provided, there is no such implication - situation X continues to exist after time Y.

 

[francisdesales]

Fran - I do not have my Greek bible handy, plus I getting ready to go to work - In the passages that you provided, is the word translated till, until, or unto "heos" - or are other Greek words used?

Heos is used in each case. Whether the word is a conjunction or an adverb determines the English translation of until/til or unto. However, the same Greek word is used - and the same meaning, of temporal limiting.

Your silly 2 Sam verse illustration proves the point that you are taking the passage out of context.

Of course I am. We know that Michel had no more children after her death. Mine is an illustration that the word used can have several meanings. Context determines what it actually means. It is NOT clear from context that Mary had sexual union with Joseph AFTER Jesus was born!!! You are jumping to conclusions. Why can't you see that?

For the hundredth time, the most a Protester can say is that the Catholic Church should not have declared Mary's virginity a dogma, because the Bible doesn't explicitly state it. We do not know from Mat 1:25 whether Mary had other biological children or not from "until".

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

In matt 1:25 the word ''heos'' is used as a conjunction and so it is properly translated ''until''....As I said before, it is connecting the act of sexual intercourse with a period of time...It is not saying never or maybe...If you read further in the same passage, you will also find the definite article which in Greek makes it an emphatic statement....

Who cares what part of speech determines the ENGLISH word of "until" or "unto"? They have the same meaning in Greek, a temporal limiting. Something happens up to a certain point. Beyond that, it may or may not change. It CAN, but my examples PROVES that it does not have to. Unless you think that women give birth to children after death or that Sodom would have been destroyed after Jesus said it would have stood if they knew Jesus and His works.

You are reading the Bible under extra-Biblical presumptions. That Mary MUST have had other children. If a Catholic says otherwise, it must be wrong, doubly so. Thus, you are enslaved to your one-sided thinking, not taking into account that the text is neutral on Mary's post-birth sex life.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

This is beyond silly and for the life of me, I do not know why I am wasting my time when I could be working.... :roll:

Drew...Let me ask you a very simple question....A yes or no answer will do.

In the context of matt 1:25....

If you were reading it for the sake of learning....Would you agree that ''until'' means they had sex after a certain amount of time passed by?

Yes or no will do....

I would. Until the Church told me that reading was incorrect. Then, because I consider the Church as divinely protected from error in faith or moral teachings, I would adjust my views to match God's views.

Now a question for you.

If God told you something you didn't agree with at first thought, would you still hold to your opinion or would you consider changing your mind?

Regards

 

[jgredline]

I would. Until the Church told me that reading was incorrect. Then, because I consider the Church as divinely protected from error in faith or moral teachings, I would adjust my views to match God's views.

Fair enough....so if I understand this, you are taking the churches interpretation of what the bible says....

Now a question for you.

If God told you something you didn't agree with at first thought, would you still hold to your opinion or would you consider changing your mind?

Regards

If it were indeed God, I would listen to God...Infact I try and listen as much as I can...However, I would not listen to a person or organization who says they have a ''word'' OR a ''Teaching'' that goes against scripture....The Holy Spirit is the one who gives us understanding...With out the Holy Spirit the bible is but a book of riddles...

So lets look at Matt 1:25 ...You said in your quote above, that you would read it the way I interpret it until the church (CC) told you it was a wrong interpretation...So to me, I would listen to what the bible teaches as opposed to what man teaches...

 

[francisdesales]

If it were indeed God, I would listen to God...Infact I try and listen as much as I can...However, I would not listen to a person or organization who says they have a ''word'' OR a ''Teaching'' that goes against scripture....The Holy Spirit is the one who gives us understanding...With out the Holy Spirit the bible is but a book of riddles...

Non-sequitar. Neither would I listen to a Church that goes AGAINST the Word of God as found in the Bible. Mat 1:25 and the Catholic explanation does not go against the Bible. It goes against how I personally would interpret the Bible - BUT, when the meaning of "until" is better explained and I see the Catholic point of view, I find that it is NOT against the Scriptures, but a different interpretation that falls within what is permissible interpretation. Noting that the Church has taught this for so many years, I find that only my pride would prevent me from NOT changing my own fallible reading of the bible.

The difference between you and me is that you think you are infallible and I know I am not.

The Holy Spirit gives understanding, but He obviously doesn't give it fully and equally to every Christian. Don't you argue theology with other "Spirit-filled" Protestants? You aren't in perfect agreement with ANYONE. This does not bode well for those who CLAIM the Spirit moves them to understand the Scriptures. It is, quite frankly, special pleading, which is unacceptable when debating.

Quite simply, by refusing the Church's interpretation, you are claiming to be wiser and, in effect, "more" infallible then the Church itself. I do not see your name in Scripture as the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth.

So to me, I would listen to what the bible teaches as opposed to what man teaches...

You are a man, I presume. You are listening to yourself, a man. You are merely placing yourself above the Church and pretending that the Holy Spirit leads you personally above the Church. Such arrogance is NOT an indication of a person filled with the Spirit. By your fruits, you shall be judged. Arrogant people have a special place in Scriptures...

Until you can find me a verse that says that Javier has been given special graces from the Holy Spirit and that ALL of his decisions are actually from the Holy Spirit, then you don't have a clue on whether your theological constructs are from God, the devil, or yourself. Our reference point is the Church, not ourselves.

Regards

 

[golfjack]

reply

Fran, Do you know the role that the Holy Spirit plays with the Father and Jesus? Maybe, I will start a thread about the Holy Spirit.



May God bless, Golfjack

 

[jgredline]

Joe
Now your putting words in my mouth when you know the context of the conversation...OK, I can play along...I have a good sense of humor...

On a couple of occasions you have stated that you put the word of the church ahead of God... I for one can't do that.....God gave each one of us a mind to learn...Some more than others....I will be addressing the CC false interpretation of those Matthews verses...Peter is not the first pope and the CC church is not the church you think it is speaking about....LOL....

 

[sisterchristian]

1.) Perpetual Virgin/ Ever Virgin
Not only is this not based in scripture it is perfectly illogical. Mary was married and Jesus had Brothers, there is only one immaculate conception and only one other method of conception at that time in history.
2.) Immaculate Conception (is about Mary not having original sin)
This has no basis in scripture andd straight up calls scripture errant for Romans 3:23 very plainly states that "all" have sinned and does not make an exclusion for Mary or anyone else.{
3.) Assumption of Mary into Heaven
Once more a man made doctrine with no basis what so ever on the Word of God.
4.) Queen of heaven and that she is the Ark of the Covenant
Wow! straight out of the peanut section and a complete fabrication.
5.) Mother of God
In context she is the mother of Jesus and this statement should be made only with qualification for indeed, she is not the mother of the Father.
6.) Our Mother
My mother was not nor is she Mary, my mother is Lillian Violet Schoenberg and I can't even imagine the basis for this statement.

Thi is an excellent response! :angel: