Reflections from a pope

[Drew]

The focus should be on the word "but". Let us put this into context:

Matthew 1:24-25

And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

The word BUT is the key.

Jospeh took Mary to be his wife - in essense 'legally wed', in what I believe the culture meant to consumate the marriage - ie: have sexual relations with his 'wife'. BUT

He knew Mary as his wife in all ways but one - sexual relations.

What the UNTIL provides is the timeframe.

If as the Catholics believe that Mary remained a virgin - there would be no use for the term 'but'.

I do not think the above argument is correct. Consider the hypothetical case of a nuclear technician "Fred" who has been accused of taking his eyes off a guage that measures reactor temperature on Tuesday June 25 2010 sometime between 9 AM and 2 PM. Why is this accusation made? Because there was a meltdown that day and the meltdown started at 2 PM. Fred's shift doesn't end till 5 PM, but the meltdown, if it was Fred's fault, would have been the result of something he did between 9 and 2. These details are important to this analogy.

Now let's suppose that the technician admits he is generally a goof-off but is quite insistent that, despite his other shortcomings, he checked the guage consistently every ten minutes (as his job requires).

Borrowing from the language structure of Matt 1:24-25, he makes the following statement to his accusers:

"I, Fred, will confess that I generally meet the criteria of an incompetent technician, but on june 25, 2010, I checked that guage every ten minutes from 9 AM until 2 PM."

Note the specific similarity to Matt 1:24-25 in respect to the "meeting all criteria but one" sense. Joseph and Mary were married in every sense but one, and Fred is a bad nuclear technician in every sense but one.

Does this way of speaking require us to think that Fred took his off the guage sometime after 2 PM? No, it most certainly does not. His entire statement is based on explaining his behaviour relevant to a specific accusation - that he is responsible for a meltdown that occurred before 2 PM.

The key thing to realize is this: the "until" is being used by Fred in the "until my behaviour became irrelevant to the matter at issue" sense, not in the "until I then stopped checked the guage every ten minutes" sense. Fred is using the word "until" perfectly well and yet are not justified in concluding that he stopped checking the guage after 2 PM.

This example shows that the use of the word "but" does not require us to believe that the technician changed his behaviour after 2 PM. He uses "but" to emphasize the distinction between his professionalism in checking the guage every ten minutes and his admission that he is generally non-professional in his behaviour.

In the case of Matthew 1:24-25, I think it is entirely plausible that the author uses "until" in the "until her virginity became irrelevant to demonstrating that Jesus was fathered by God" sense. And the word "but" is being used to demonstrate the fact that Mary and Joseph met all the criteria of being married except consummation.

I see no basis for a claim that this text shows definitively that Mary lost her virginity sometime in her marriage. The text is ambiguous in respect to that question.

 

[Guest]

Drew - the point of Matthew 1:25 is to show that Mary was a virgin during the time that Mary was with child. That is fine. We all can agree on this.

But I do not believe it is limited to that. Keep into account that the previous verse says that Jospeh took Mary as his wife, BUT kept her a virgin - not for the rest of their married life - but for a specific time.

What was that specific time? During Mary's pregnancy with Jesus.

Coupled with references to Jesus having brothers and sisters, this illustrates that Mary and Joseph had normal sexual relations. If they did not have sexual relations, Matthew 1:25 would look differently.

 

[aj830]

I trust that my answer, answered your question

.

Yes, but it does not mean that I believe that Jesus had brothers however and I also believe that this verse is evidence to that.

 

[Guest]

.

Yes, but it does not mean that I believe that Jesus had brothers however and I also believe that this verse is evidence to that.

Jesus's role was not to uphold the Jewish Law, but to fulfill it.

The Pharisee's attempted to uphold it, yet did not follow it, let alone fulfill it.

Therefore, I fail to see how the verse is indication that Jesus did not have brother's and sisters.

Our responsibility to the Scriptures is not to search it to provide support of our already held beliefs, but rather to shape and formulate our beliefs.

Do not rely of proof-texts, bur rather search the Scriptures and be open to the teachings of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Drew]

Drew - the point of Matthew 1:25 is to show that Mary was a virgin during the time that Mary was with child. That is fine. We all can agree on this.

I agree with this

But I do not believe it is limited to that. Keep into account that the previous verse says that Jospeh took Mary as his wife, BUT kept her a virgin - not for the rest of their married life - but for a specific time.

I believe that I have clearly shown that this conclusion is simply not justified. Both the "but" and the "until" are entirely consistent with an interpretation that does not require Mary to lose her virginity. The "but" highlights the "exception" to normal marriage that Mary's virginity entailed. The "until" denotes the end of the time period that is relevant to demonstrating that Joseph could not have been Jesus' father.

I realize that sometimes the word "until" implies a transition of state as in the following statements that might be made "out of the blue" by somebody. By "out of the blue", I mean that these statements are made in no particular context:

"I slept until 9" (obviously waking thereafter)
"I was a virgin until I got married (obviously losing virginity after that)
"I got at least one hit in each baseball game until June 15 (obviously failing to get a hit during the game on June 15)

Fine.

But most statements in real life are not made in a context independent manner. In the case of the nuclear technician example, context establishes that the "until" qualifier does not mean he is admitting to taking his eyes off the gauge after 2 PM. I think this is obvious and I humbly submit that objective readers with no vested interest will see that the nuclear technician is speaking in a perfectly correct way in his use of the word "until" - he does not imply that he stopped looking at the guage after 2 PM.

I suggest that the analogy to Mary's virginity is clear. Just as is plausible for the nuclear technician, it is entirely plausible that a context of demonstrating who Jesus' father has the result of making the "until" in Matthew in no way imply that Mary lost her virginity.

Another example: I am accused of shoplifting a watch at store "X" on May 26. The theft is known to have occurred before 2 PM and the store opened at 9 AM. I protest my innocence saying: "I could not have shoplifted that watch. I visited every store in the mall except X during the period from 9 AM until 2 PM but I never entered store X during the period from 9 AM until 2 PM".

I submit that the way language is used (at least english) is such that the above statement in no way implies that I entered store X sometime after 2 PM. Note the similarity to the Matthew statement - the "being in every other store in the mall" is analagous to being married except in one way - the absence of intercourse.

I think that the way the argument has proceeded is this: you (and others) have made a "general" argument that does not work because it is not true to the complexities of language. I claim that the nuclear technician example basically proves that the general argument does not work - the nuclear technician example is a concrete example of how a statement with both a "but" and an "until", playing the same roles as these words do in Matt 1:24-25, simply does not require that a "change of state".

In order for your argument to work, you have to believe that the nuclear technician is implying that he stopped checking the gauge after 2 PM. Or that I admit to entering store X after 2 PM.

I submit that it is obvious that neither the nuclear technician nor I am admitting to changing behaviour after 2 PM in the respective examples.

Can I prove this? No. But I will appeal to the knowledge of readers regarding language and how it is used.

Coupled with references to Jesus having brothers and sisters, this illustrates that Mary and Joseph had normal sexual relations.

This is a different issue on which I have no opinion.

 

[stranger]

Drew wrote:

I realize that sometimes the word "until" implies a transition of state as in the following statements that might be made "out of the blue" by somebody. By "out of the blue", I mean that these statements are made in no particular context:

"I slept until 9" (obviously waking thereafter)
"I was a virgin until I got married (obviously losing virginity after that)
"I got at least one hit in each baseball game until June 15 (obviously failing to get a hit during the game on June 15)

Hi Drew,

Think of it this way - there is common usage that is associated with how people speak today, what is characterisitic of language and culture etc. Though not explicitly stated in a sentence- things are assumed.

But if we consider 'legal' usage - that which will need to stand up in a court of law - then expect cross examination and a level of accuracy above what I classed as common usage.

"I slept until 9" (obviously waking thereafter)

cf

"I slept until 9".


In "I slept until 9" you could have slept until 10 and still slept until 9. The question :what where you doing between 9 and 10 would have clarified the situation. In cases where such testimony is critical - qualifications are sought.

eg I slept until 9. The qualification sought might be: Have you ever walked in your sleep and not known it?

 

[Heidi]

Hi Drew,

Think of it this way - there is common usage that is associated with how people speak today, what is characterisitic of language and culture etc. Though not explicitly stated in a sentence- things are assumed.

But if we consider 'legal' usage - that which will need to stand up in a court of law - then expect cross examination and a level of accuracy above what I classed as common usage.

"I slept until 9" (obviously waking thereafter)

cf

"I slept until 9".


In "I slept until 9" you could have slept until 10 and still slept until 9. The question :what where you doing between 9 and 10 would have clarified the situation. In cases where such testimony is critical - qualifications are sought.

eg I slept until 9. The qualification sought might be: Have you ever walked in your sleep and not known it?

Again, there is no reason for the catholics to quibble about the word "until" except that they believe the pope over God. So they have no choice but to quibble about words and try to redefine them just like Bill Clinton had no choice to try to redefine "is' to pass along his lies also. :

But they only look foolish doing so because even they know what the word "until" means in that verse. So because it takes effort to try to re-define the word "until", then their desire to change God's word is deliberate and willful. But do they ever try to redefine the pope's words? :o Never. ;-)

 

[Drew]

But they only look foolish doing so because even they know what the word "until" means in that verse. So because it takes effort to try to re-define the word "until", then their desire to change God's word is deliberate and willful. But do they ever try to redefine the pope's words? :o Never. ;-)

If we are all so foolish then please explain precisely how the nuclear technician is using the word "until" in an improper sense in the example that I have provided. I think that this example clearly demonstrates that "until" does not always require a "change of state".

Of course, since we are all so foolish, it should be easy for you to confront this example head on and explain to us why we are obliged to conclude that his statement "I checked that guage every ten minutes from 9 AM until 2 PM" requires us to believe that he ceased this periodic checking after 2 PM.

Consider the following 2 statements. The first statement is made "out of the blue" by me to a stranger at the bus stop:

"I was at work from 9 until 2, you know".

This statement indeed strongly implies that I left work at 2.

Now consider the following statement by me made in an attempt to show my innocence regarding a murder known to be committed between 9 and 2:

"I was at work during the time interval of interest, that is from 9 until 2."

I think this statement clearly does not imply that I left work at 2. I am speaking to a very special issue - my location during a specific time interval. In this context, "until" simply denotes the end of this time interval and in no way implies that I left work after 2.

In the case of Matthew 1:25, it is entirely reasonable to see the "special issue" as being whether Jesus could have been fathered by Joseph. This would make the "until" in Matthew's statement simply a denotation of the end of the time interval in which Mary's virginity would be relevant to answering this specific question.

Things are not as simple as they seem.....

 

[aj830]

Again, there is no reason for the catholics to quibble about the word "until" except that they believe the pope over God. So they have no choice but to quibble about words and try to redefine them just like Bill Clinton had no choice to try to redefine "is' to pass along his lies also.

But they only look foolish doing so because even they know what the word "until" means in that verse. So because it takes effort to try to re-define the word "until", then their desire to change God's word is deliberate and willful. But do they ever try to redefine the pope's words? Never.

No one is changing the word until here. If you can't see that it doesn't specifically tell us anything afterward then I don't know what to tell you. We have given numerous examples. If you can't see it or refuse to see it there is nothing else we can do.

Speaking of redefining words in the Bible, how do you respond to Protestants who take "This is my body" and change it to "This represents my body".

 

[Guest]

No one is changing the word until here. If you can't see that it doesn't specifically tell us anything afterward then I don't know what to tell you. We have given numerous examples. If you can't see it or refuse to see it there is nothing else we can do.

Let's say for a moment that you are correct in your understanding of the word "until" - how do you know that your understanding of the word 'until' is the one being used in Matthew 1:25.

I grant you that the word until has various meanings - however, how do you know the one your are using is correct for this passage?

Speaking of redefining words in the Bible, how do you respond to Protestants who take "This is my body" and change it to "This represents my body".

If you would like to discuss this issue, start a new thread. Unless you are just trolling to stir up arguements.

 

[stranger]

Again, there is no reason for the catholics to quibble about the word "until" except that they believe the pope over God. So they have no choice but to quibble about words and try to redefine them just like Bill Clinton had no choice to try to redefine "is' to pass along his lies also. :

But they only look foolish doing so because even they know what the word "until" means in that verse. So because it takes effort to try to re-define the word "until", then their desire to change God's word is deliberate and willful. But do they ever try to redefine the pope's words? :o Never. ;-)

Heidi,

You have to take up these matters, which you address, with the Catholics. Keep well.

 

[Heidi]

If we are all so foolish then please explain precisely how the nuclear technician is using the word "until" in an improper sense in the example that I have provided. I think that this example clearly demonstrates that "until" does not always require a "change of state".

Of course, since we are all so foolish, it should be easy for you to confront this example head on and explain to us why we are obliged to conclude that his statement "I checked that guage every ten minutes from 9 AM until 2 PM" requires us to believe that he ceased this periodic checking after 2 PM.

Consider the following 2 statements. The first statement is made "out of the blue" by me to a stranger at the bus stop:

"I was at work from 9 until 2, you know".

This statement indeed strongly implies that I left work at 2.

Now consider the following statement by me made in an attempt to show my innocence regarding a murder known to be committed between 9 and 2:

"I was at work during the time interval of interest, that is from 9 until 2."

I think this statement clearly does not imply that I left work at 2. I am speaking to a very special issue - my location during a specific time interval. In this context, "until" simply denotes the end of this time interval and in no way implies that I left work after 2.

In the case of Matthew 1:25, it is entirely reasonable to see the "special issue" as being whether Jesus could have been fathered by Joseph. This would make the "until" in Matthew's statement simply a denotation of the end of the time interval in which Mary's virginity would be relevant to answering this specific question.

Things are not as simple as they seem.....

So if the pope had not declared Mary a virgin all of her life, then what in Matthew 1:25 would lead you to believe that she was? :o

How should God have told us that she was not a virgin all of her life and how many words would the Catholics try to redefine if he used different words? The catholics have no clue why Matthew 1:235 was wroded the way it was. It tells us:

1) That Mary remained a virgin during her pregnancy with Jesus
2) It tells us that Mary that Mary lost her virginity and when she lost her virginity.

So that passage is extremely specific about Mary and Joseph's sex life. So the attempts of the catholics to turn Matthew 1:25 into: "But he had no union with her forever" are pathetically transparent because you can't justify it. The catholics look as foolish as Bill Clinton did when trying to redefine "is" to pass along his lies also. But Clinton didn't think he looked pathetic. He actually thought he was fooling people just like the catholics erroneously think also. They have no idea how obvious their lies are to the rest of the world. But since the catholics have such a hard time understanding a simple sentence like that one, they have no chance to understand the deeper meanins in scripture. Absolutely none.