Interesting News article

Hi Colin,

Hi Carson, I actually enjoy studying the human side of Scripture very much. Jeremiah, cut off from family, temple, marriage, funerals and parties, becomes the prohpet of the New Covennt where God will be personal to all, Eziekiel, in Exile, is brought back to the land and the Temple etc.

This is not what I mean by the "human" aspect of Scriptures. What I am referring to is the fact that the Fundamentalist hermeneutic does not allow enough room for the instrument in explaining the inspiration of Scripture.

Catholicism believes that the human authors were fully authors themselves just as much as God is the author in the same way that Christ is 100% divine and 100% human. This means that the Scriptures are inerrant as Jesus was sinless, but it means that only what the human authors themselves intended to convey to their audience is considered the literal sense of Scripture.


I find the best way to view the written word is just like the living Word, fully human, fully divine, and utterly sinless. Psuedo authorship says scripture claims one thing, but is another. It is just a fancy word for lying. To say this does not imply that I ignore the human side of scripture, rather that I believe Scripture to be sinless.

Take, for instance, Mark 2:24-28:

And the Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?"
And he said to them, "Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, when Abi'athar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?" And he said to them, "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath."

If you turn to the Old Testament, you'll notice that 1 Samuel 21:1ff records this incident, and Abi'athar was not the high priest; Ahim'elech, his father, was.

Now, this is a blatant discrepancy regarding the affirmation of Abi'athar's position as high priest of Israel.

So, either:

(1) Mark is lying
(2) Jesus is lying

or.. Mark or Jesus have a reason for making this switch in this Gospel account and it is this affirmation of the author that is inerrant, not the historical accuracy because the author doesn't mean to make a historical statement.

or.. the original manuscript has been altered over time to the degree that what he have now is errant, though the original piece was inerrant.

God bless,

Carson

 

Hi Clint,

I provided an example of how "until" does not necessitate the action's termination at that point in time. In this instance, the action is virginity.

The circumstances surrounding the event are irrelevant to the usage of this single word. If you wish, you can make it seem so for the sake of bolstering your argument with fluff, but it is unconvincing and evasive.

2 Samuel 6:23 - "And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death."

Here is an instance where "until" does not necessitate the action of having no child terminating at the point of death. Does this mean that Michal had a child after death? No.

So, to use "until" in Matthew 1:25 as a proof text is only to assert your Protestant prejudice upon the text since the text does not necessitate or call for the termination of Mary's virginity due to the use of the word "until".

You also have not responded to the Biblical edifice supporting Mary's perpetual virginity, namely, regarding Mary's response to St. Gabriel, which is cryptic without Mary's lifelong vow of virginity considering that at the time, she was legally married to Joseph - a legal marriage that could only be undone by divorce or death.

God bless,

Carson

[ October 28, 2002, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

How ironic:

2 Samuel 6:23
Therefore Michol the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death. - Douay-Rheims Bible

23
And so Saul's daughter Michal was childless to the day of her death. - 2 Samuel 6:23 NAB

23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death. 2 Samuel 6:23 RSV (the regular edition but I'd imagine that the Catholic edition reads the same)

The main Catholic translations do not use the word "until" nor "till" in 2 Samuel 6:23. The NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV and other Protestant translations don't use "until" nor "till" but instead use "to" just as the above Catholic translations and older translations (KJV, ASV)tend to use "unto". The NLT paraphrases the verse as follows:

23So Michal, the daughter of Saul, remained childless throughout her life.

Again there is no "until" implying that the situation changed after she died. Just out of curiousity, which version are you quoting?

In Matthew 1:25, both Catholic and Protestant translations use "until" or "till".

but kept her a virgin until she (1) gave birth to a Son; and (2) he called His name Jesus. - Matthew 1:25 NASB

The statement implies that she remained a virgin until Jesus was born and sometimes afterwards ceased to be a virgin and had other children. Even if we assume that the best Catholic and Protestant translators were wrong in their translation of 2 Samuel 6:23, the fact that Michal died without children tells us that she did not have any children since to the best of our knowledge, dead people don't have children. With regard to Matthew 1:25 however, Mary was still alive after giving birth to Jesus and so the statement implies that she did not stay a virgin afterwards, else it would have been better to say something like: "he kept her a virgin for the rest of her life". The implicaton of scripture as it stands, is that Mary did not remain children for all her life but rather ceased to be a virgin sometime after Jesus was born.

 

Hi Dualhunter,

I'm quoting the verse from memory.

Young's literal translation has

"As to Michal daughter of Saul, she had no child till the day of her death."

Are you saying that "until" must necessitate the termination of the action?

If you aren't, then you do not have an argument.

If you are, then here are some further examples:

“‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet”’” (Matt. 22:44). Will the Lord no longer sit at God’s right hand after his enemies have been put under his feet?

“[Anna] was a widow until she was eighty-four” (Luke 2:37). Did she remarry at 84? Possible, but highly unlikely.

“I charge you to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. 6:13-14). Could Timothy disregard this command after the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ?

“Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching” (1 Tim. 4:13). Was Timothy supposed to quit reading the Scripture, preaching, and teaching, after Paul arrived?

Or perhaps you would like John Calvin's take on the matter?

"There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage, [Matt. 1:25], that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent his angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company." (John Calvin, Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, 1562)

God bless,

Carson

[ October 28, 2002, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Read the last part of my previous post. It is not just the "until" that implies that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus, but the statement itself as well.

 

Read the last part of my previous post.

"For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent his angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company." (John Calvin, Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, 1562)

[ October 28, 2002, 08:56 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Chem:
Your statement about me belonging to the restoration movement is simply an unsubstantiated opinion. One you cannot prove. Instead of making a conclusion based on assertion, do the honorable thing, and provide the scriptural evidence for such. You know as well as you know your name you cannot prove your assertion with scripture. Therefore, you proceed to make a conclusion without the evidence and expect others to believe it. I believe some call this technique prejudical bias or poisoning the waters.

It is very dishonorable to label people without evidence and or without asking them as to what they are religiously. If you claim to be Catholic,Lutheran or Methodist, I will refer to you as such. I would do the same for anyone one else who prefers to use any other ist or ism as a way identification. I prefer Christian. My identification simply means of Christ or belonging to Christ. I do not know why you find that so distasteful. It was good enough for God and those of the first century church. Acts 11:26,I Pet. 4:16.

 

Chem:
Why don't you tell me what you believe? Are you endorsing the website for your personal belief in The Bible? I do not want to misunderstand your position.

 

2 Samuel 6:23 is from ancient Hebrew, Matthew 1:25 is ancient Greek. I am not a linguist but I may start attending seminary to learn both languages for these debates.

The sentence structure of Matthew 1:25 definitely implies that they had sex after the birth of Christ. If we are making a comparison between the situations of Michal and Mary, why wouldn't the verse read "but he had no union with her until her death" as it does in 2Samuel? The birth marks an ending point for the preposition "until," which is defined as:

[ October 28, 2002, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

You Catholics are silly, knowing that Evangelical Christians reject tradition, you think that I would consider something that Calvin said to have authority? The errors of Catholic church were so many that reformers such as Luther and Calvin didn't deal with all of them but instead continued in some while they opposed the ones of greater importance.

8
I have become (14) estranged from my brothers
And an alien to my mother's sons.
9
For (15) zeal for Your house has consumed me,
And (16) the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me. - Psalm 69:8-9 NASB

17 His (24) disciples remembered that it was written, "(25) ZEAL FOR YOUR HOUSE WILL CONSUME ME." - John 2:17 NASB

 

Clint:
You are correct. Mary was not a perpetual virgin. I believe Mark 6:3 makes this clear.You are a very patient man. I do not wish to elaborate ont this statement for fear of being unkind in court of public opinion.

 

Hi Dualhunter,

Your answer, "You Catholics are silly, knowing that Evangelical Christians reject tradition, you think that I would consider something that Calvin said to have authority? The errors of Catholic church were so many that reformers such as Luther and Calvin didn't deal with all of them but instead continued in some while they opposed the ones of greater importance," serves as a great dodge.

Of course, when other Protestants disagree with you and simultaneously agree with Catholics, you can simply toss them into your own nicely divided category that places them in the "tainted by Roman inventions" basket.

Take, for instance, Cardinal Newman's conversion after his historical immersion through the Oxford Movement. He never really held to true, pristine, Evangelical truth, right? So his monumental ecclesial jump was really just taking the full stride into the tainted Catholicism that Anglicanism already has a foot in.

Perhaps the greatest historical figures of the Protestant Revolt who served as advocates and proponents of Sola Scriptura and flaunted the Roman Church as the Whore of Babylon couldn't separate themselves completely enough from what they wholly detested. No, that is left for you to accomplish.

I believe thou doth protest too much.

your brother in Christ,

Carson

 

Hi Clint,

I'm still waiting for you to explain Mary's response to St. Gabriel, which is the Biblical capstone to the doctrine of Mary's Perpetual Virginity.

As I've shown above, "until" is used in numerous places in Scripture without the implications that you insist upon.

“‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet”’” (Matt. 22:44). Will the Lord no longer sit at God’s right hand after his enemies have been put under his feet?

“[Anna] was a widow until she was eighty-four” (Luke 2:37). Did she remarry at 84? Possible, but highly unlikely.

“I charge you to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. 6:13-14). Could Timothy disregard this command after the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ?

“Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching” (1 Tim. 4:13). Was Timothy supposed to quit reading the Scripture, preaching, and teaching, after Paul arrived?

The entire purpose of Mt 1:25 is to support Matthew's rendering of the Hebrew almah (maiden before the birth of her first child) as the Greek parthenos (strictly a virgin) in defense of the Virgin Birth. You are making an unnecessary implication by insisting that "until" necessitates relations between Mary and Joseph after the birth of Christ, as demonstrated by the above comparative references. It also denies the virginal vow that serves as the only intelligible explanation of Mary's response to St. Gabriel's announcement in Luke 1:34.

yours in Christ,

Carson

 

I see no virginal vow in Luke 1:34

"And Mary said unto the messenger, `How shall this be, seeing a husband I do not know?" YLT.

 

I'm not Clint (shocker, I know), but I'll take a stab at the following.

Version by version:
NAS: No, doesn't prove anything for you.
YLT: Possibly, but not convincing.
KJV: A catholic's best bet because it is sorta weirdly worded. Lets look at the greed of the word 'ginwskw'.

Well, it seems the definition in the greek really speaks to Mary not knowing yet. I am curious how you came to the conclusion that it needed to be a perpetual virginity? A vow? This is not supported by this verse at all.

Carson, you have done just that. Though, this does nothing except obsfucate the situation more. If you really want to prove something, you must prove that 'until' in this case has to mean what you say it means. If you do this, then you have made an argument.

At first glance, this seems menacing, doesn't it....

Perhaps the 'until' in this case should really be 'unto'? This makes more sense.

I can't find this quote anywhere.

Some thoughts about this:

1. This is an idiomatic expression (you can get that from the definition used).

Just as if I said "Watch our for you little sister until I get home." What? Am I to never watch out for her after that?

Or, if I said "I will pray until I get an answer to my question." Will I never pray after that? Will I be praying every second upto the moment I get an answer? Figure of speech.

2. Actually, there is not 2. It is an expression.

See above.

We have already addressed Luke 1:34. There was not vow.

What about Mt 1:24?

An interesting not. The word 'until' is not the only important word here. 'Until' alone, and you would have some gripe, but when you add the word 'ou' or 'when, where' it is all taken away.

Mary remained a virgin 'till when' or 'until when' or 'unto when' or 'until where' Jesus was born. Seems to strongly associate Jesus's birth with the fast approaching end of Mary's virgninity.

In Christ, the first but not only child of Mary,
jason

 

Jason,

Out of simple curiousity, do you find that holding the belief that Mary remained a life-long virgin as:

1) Immoral?

2) Contrary to Scripture?

3) Damaging to one's faith?

4) Would you consider this a closed-question ("She had other children. Period.")?

Thanks!

God bless,

Grant

 

No

Yes

It is damaging only if you believe that Mary was a life long virgin and it turns out she wasn't. If you believe that she wasn't, and it turns out she was, no real damage.

The difference is most non-catholic belief systems could easily adapt to the change, while, the catholic (ie. perpetual virginity) claim would prove insurmountable if Mary had sex (not to mention other children).

Yes. She had sex with her husband.

Not a problem,

In Christ,
jason

 

Jason,

If it's damaging to my faith that I believe that Mary remained a virgin, and she didn't...

...then it's dangerous to your faith that you believe she had marital relations if she remained a virgin.

God bless,

Grant

 

Grant,

No, I don't believe it would be dangerous. I have no personal theology based upon Mary. If she remained a virgin, this still doesn't mean she is the 'queen of heaven'. It simply means she remained a virgin. That being said, if it turns out she did remain a virgin, something I believe the bible not only doesn't support, but actually refutes, then...ok...she remained a virgin. No big deal.

But, if you assert that her remaining a virgin implies she is the Queen of Heaven and has to be more in line with Catholic theology, well, that is a whole other debate.

In Christ,
jason