Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

NotUrAvgGuy

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2015
1,003
417
Boise, Idaho
Visit site
✟70,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
As you have been told, the word translated into "until" says nothing about what happens after the subject event. I think some examples would be helpful. You say "Why put it that way?" This is reminder about the Bible not originally being written in English and different languages had different common constructions. The same Greek word is used in other places in the Bible, with "until" and "til" and "onto" being some of the English words used in a number of translations into English. I provide you with a couple of examples:
1 Tim 4:13 13 "Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching." RSVCE
The point of this passage is NOT to prove that after he arrives they never again publicly read scripture or preached or taught.

"2 Samuel 6:23, Michal had no child until the day of her death"
Likewise the point of this passage is not prove Michal had children after she was dead.
You are making a point I already conceded in my statement. It doesn't prove that they didn't have relations after the birth of Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
8,650
3,298
Minnesota
✟221,325.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You are making a point I already conceded in my statement. It doesn't prove that they didn't have relations after the birth of Jesus.
Actually at 5:10 PM this very day, #337, you asked the question
  • "why put it that way if you are trying to make the point that they vowed to stay celibate?"
and I simply answered your question, pointing out by example how your analysis of the English translation is flawed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

NotUrAvgGuy

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2015
1,003
417
Boise, Idaho
Visit site
✟70,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Actually at 5:10 PM this very day, #337, you asked the question
  • "why put it that way if you are trying to make the point that they vowed to stay celibate?"
and I simply answered your question, pointing out by example how your analysis of the English translation is flawed.
In context, the natural understanding is that they refrained from sex until after Jesus was born. While the Greek word translated "until" can have other meanings, in context and the way it is used would lead one to conclude they only stay celibate until after Jesus' birth. It is your presupposition that they took a vow of celibacy that forces you to seek another meaning.
 
Upvote 0

Soulx3

Active Member
Feb 22, 2024
169
24
35
PNW
✟3,806.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
You reference writings that are not Holy Scripture.

I reference writings of God you reject whether you recognize that they're from God or not.

As I stated before, The Poem of the Man-God is not Scripture and has issues.

You said The Poem of the Man-God "contains many theological and factual errors." You lazily failed to fact check what you read about it. So, do you want to go and do a thorough research this time and come back with an accurate representation of Maria Valtorta and the Work, or do you want me to point out your errors for you?

I am not limited by what I'd rather believe. I am limited by the testimony of Scripture.

You limit God to the Bible and thus limit your ability to acquire further knowledge and understanding from Him.

I also don't treat as equal the opinions of the church fathers. Your "proof" about Jesus' siblings is not proof.

You say my evidence here isn't proof because you reject the testimonies of the early Church fathers, as well as the scriptural verses that support their testimonies, but without giving any explanation as to why their testimonies are not credible. So, you should probably try and do that.

...I don't believe Mary was ever-virgin.

Jesus is God Incarnate. He referred to Himself as God in various ways multiple times. Even the Pharisees understood that He did, which is why they told him they were going to stone Him for "blasphemy" for "making Himself God." Mary conceived and carried God Incarnate. Now, only a High Priest was allowed behind the Holy of Holies to offer sacrifice to God for humanity. Would one not have to be so perfect, to the point of being second to God, in order to carry and raise God Incarnate on earth, the most Holy and Perfect One, and offer God the Son to God the Father as sacrifice for humanity? Yes or no?
 
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
8,650
3,298
Minnesota
✟221,325.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
In context, the natural understanding is that they refrained from sex until after Jesus was born. While the Greek word translated "until" can have other meanings, in context and the way it is used would lead one to conclude they only stay celibate until after Jesus' birth. It is your presupposition that they took a vow of celibacy that forces you to seek another meaning.
In context? Natural? I just gave you two others examples from the Bible, and it was explained to you that the Greek word says absolutely nothing about the future after the point of the subject:

1 Tim 4:13 13 "Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching." RSVCE
The point of this passage is NOT to prove that after he arrives they never again publicly read scripture or preached or taught.

"2 Samuel 6:23, Michal had no child until the day of her death"
Likewise the point of this passage is not prove Michal had children after she was dead.

In fact you are adding a meaning to the God-breathed Biblical text.
 
Upvote 0

jas3

Active Member
Jan 21, 2023
257
149
Southeast
✟27,261.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
From the Protestant perspective, we don't see the Immaculate Conception, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, or her bodily assumption into heaven found in Scripture. We see no exceptions being given to "all" being sinners. We see no need for Mary to have been sinless. We see no need for her to have remained a virgin. We see no reason for her to have been bodily assumed into heaven. God could have chosen to do those things but we see no clear evidence He did. We also don't feel it is any slight to Mary's character for her to have ceased to be a virgin after Jesus was born. What would be so terrible about Mary having other children?
It is interesting to see this presented as the "Protestant perspective," when the Reformers would have disagreed with you, at least on Mary's perpetual virginity. Here's a selection of quotations of them defending her perpetual virginity: Perpetual Virginity Of Mary: Held By All Protestant Reformers
While the Greek word translated "until" can have other meanings, in context and the way it is used would lead one to conclude they only stay celibate until after Jesus' birth.
To quote Martin Luther on this passage,
As we have said, the Evangelist, like the prophet Isaiah, wishes to set before our eyes this mighty wonder, and point out what an unheard-of thing it is for a maiden to be with child before her husband brings her home and lies with her; and further, that he does not know her carnally until she first has a son, which she should have had after first having been known by him. Thus, the words of the Evangelist do not refer to anything that occurred after the birth, but only to what took place before it. For the Prophet and the Evangelist, and St. Paul as well, do not treat of this virgin beyond the point where they have from her that Fruit for whose sake she is a virgin and everything else. After the Child is born they dismiss the mother and speak not about her, what became of her, but only about her Offspring. Therefore, one cannot from these words [Matthew 1:18, 25] conclude that Mary, after the birth of Christ, became a wife in the usual sense; it is therefore neither to be asserted nor believed. All the words are merely indicative of the marvelous fact that she was with child and gave birth before she had lain with a man.

The form of expression used by Matthew is the common idiom, as if I were to say, “Pharaoh believed not Moses, until he was drowned in the Red Sea.” Here it does not follow that Pharaoh believed later, after he had drowned; on the contrary, it means that he never did believe. Similarly when Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her. Again, the Red Sea overwhelmed Pharaoh before he got across. Here too it does not follow that Pharaoh got across later, after the Red Sea had overwhelmed him, but rather that he did not get across at all. In like manner, when Matthew [1:18] says, “She was found to be with child before they came together,” it does not follow that Mary subsequently lay with Joseph, but rather that she did not lie with him.

Elsewhere in Scripture the same manner of speech is employed. Psalm 110[:1] reads, “God says to my Lord: ‘Sit at My Right Hand, till I make Your enemies Your Footstool.’” Here it does not follow that Christ does not continue to sit there after His enemies are placed beneath His Feet. Again, in Genesis 28[:15], “I will not leave you until I have done all that of which I have spoken to you.” Here God did not leave him after the fulfillment had taken place. Again, in Isaiah 42[:4], “He shall not be sad, nor troublesome, till he has established justice in the earth.” There are many more similar expression, so that this babble of Helvidius is without justification; in addition, he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.
 
Upvote 0

NotUrAvgGuy

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2015
1,003
417
Boise, Idaho
Visit site
✟70,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
In context? Natural? I just gave you two others examples from the Bible, and it was explained to you that the Greek word says absolutely nothing about the future after the point of the subject:

1 Tim 4:13 13 "Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching." RSVCE
The point of this passage is NOT to prove that after he arrives they never again publicly read scripture or preached or taught.

"2 Samuel 6:23, Michal had no child until the day of her death"
Likewise the point of this passage is not prove Michal had children after she was dead.

In fact you are adding a meaning to the God-breathed Biblical text.
1 Tim 4:13 clearly means to not neglect these things while Paul is away. Attend to them, keep them up, and obviously do so always.

24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus.

Roman Catholics argue that the Greek word "until" (v 25) can be used in one of two ways. The first way would be to imply an action is not going to take place until something happens. I might say "My son is not going to get his driver's license until he turns 16." In this case I am saying the action, getting a driver's license, will be delayed until my son turns 16. The implication is that after he turns 16 he will get his driver's license. Since the action is future and predicated on a condition, there is always a chance it won't happen. You could say, "the store doesn't open until 9 am." There is always a chance the store won't open at 9 am. Unlikely but if there was a power outage the store might have to delay opening. In this case "until" speaks to intent. The intent is to open the store at 9 am. However, "until" can be used in the past tense. "I did not graduate from college until I was 22 years old." I have already graduated from college. I am here stating a condition (being 22 years old) that qualifies my having graduated from college.

A second way in which "until" can be used is to say something like "She never had children until her death." This is just another way of saying she never had children. In this case, the action "having children" never took place because the condition was death which precludes all possibility of the action taking place. If instead I said, "she did not have children until she was 35", would imply she did have children after she turned 35. If I am saying it in the past tense, it would not make sense if she never had children. "Until death" is a terminating condition. "Until 35", assuming the person is still alive or died sometime after turning 35, is not.

They argue this to insist that v 25 does not teach that Mary and Joseph had relations after Jesus was born. They believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary so argue that this use of "until" does not indicate an end to Mary's virginity. They like to cite verses like 2 Samuel 6:23:

Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death. (2 Samuel 6:23, KJV)

I have seen Catholics quote this verse where "unto" is "until" but let's look at the New Catholic Bible (NCB) translation:

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

Here it is "to" not "until." Out of 56 English translations of the Bible, only 2 use the word "until." Most translated it "to the day of her death."

image1.png

To say she had no children "to the day of her death" shows a continuing action directed toward a point (in time in this case namely her death). We should remember that 2 Samuel 6:23 is being translated from Hebrew not Greek so comparing it to a verse like Matthew 1:25 is apples to oranges. We shall see why in a bit.

Let's look at the Greek word used in Matthew 1:25. Here, it is nearly always translated "till" or "until".

image2.png


When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. (Matthew 2:9)

And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. (Matthew 24:39)

In these two verses, also written by Matthew, the word "until" is used of an action known to have been completed. We know from his account the star did stand still over Bethlehem. We also know the flood did take place. He was using the Greek for "until" to indicate an action that was accomplished after a condition was met. This is the same Greek word as the one used in Matthew 1:25.

image3.png

In Matthew 1:25, "until" is used in the equivalent of the Latin future perfect which as we can see above emphasizes an action that will take place at some point in the future. It does not mean the action might happen but will happen.

You cannot compare a sentence like "She did not have children until death" to "They did not have children until they got married." Both use the word "until" but in the first case the condition of death prevents the action "have children" from taking place. It terminates the possibility. "Until they got married" does not terminate the action. In fact, in this instance it is being used in the past tense as they have already gotten married.

Matthew's gospel was not written until years after these events had taken place. Matthew knew whether or not Mary and Joseph had other children besides Jesus. His use of "until" is not ambiguous. He is stating an action "kept her a virgin" was conditioned upon the condition "she gave birth to a son." Once that condition was met, the action will have ceased.

We should also note that in Hebrew, this same ambiguity does not exist. While 2 Samuel 6:23 uses the word "until" in English, the Hebrew word for "until" is not found in the Hebrew text. In the Septuagint, the Greek word for "until" is used as the English word "until" is used in the English translation (though only two English translations). This is used for our readability but does not mean the Hebrew word for "until" was used. In Greek, English, and Latin, the word "until" can be used in the past tense to indicate an action that took place after a condition was met.

Catholics are trying to imply ambiguity where none exists. The clear meaning of Matthew 1:25 is that Mary and Joseph refrained from relations before Jesus was born but had them after that. More explicit wording would have been used if the intent was to say they never had relations after Jesus was born. The truth is, the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity is a presupposition being applied to the text and is not a natural reading of the text.
 
Upvote 0

NotUrAvgGuy

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2015
1,003
417
Boise, Idaho
Visit site
✟70,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It is interesting to see this presented as the "Protestant perspective," when the Reformers would have disagreed with you, at least on Mary's perpetual virginity. Here's a selection of quotations of them defending her perpetual virginity: Perpetual Virginity Of Mary: Held By All Protestant Reformers

To quote Martin Luther on this passage,
I must correct myself and say from the modern Protestant perspective. I would disagree with Martin Luther on this point. Mind you, I have no issue with the thought of Mary having remained a virgin. I don't think the Bible teaches that but it would not change anything for me if she had. Believing she remained a virgin would not require a belief in her immaculate conception nor her assumption into heaven. It would also not require a belief in her remaining sinless throughout her life. Catholics seem to think that an ever-virgin Mary is somehow superior to a Mary who went on to have other children. Virginity is being put on a pedestal as though it is a holier state. Relations between a married couple was God's plan. There is nothing unholy about it. To say that having "regular children" after having Jesus would be a demeaning use of the womb that bore the savior is a human sentiment and Scripture never says that. The Catholic church insists on celibate priests and nuns yet Peter had a wife. Mary had a husband. Other apostles and disciples had families. In listing the qualifications for deacons and elders, Paul does not include being celibate or unmarried. Paul says it is an advantage to ministry to not have the concerns of a wife/family but says it is better to marry than to burn (with lust). By no means does he teach that celibacy/singleness is required.

In ancient times virginity was given a cult status. It was always a virgin who got sacrificed. Scripture never puts virginity on a pedestal. It honors motherhood and says " it is not good to be alone." Sex was designed for marriage. It is not holier for a married woman to remain a virgin and Mary and Joseph are never instructed to remain celibate. It's been suggested they took a vow of celibacy but such a vow cannot be found in Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
8,650
3,298
Minnesota
✟221,325.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
1 Tim 4:13 clearly means to not neglect these things while Paul is away. Attend to them, keep them up, and obviously do so always.

24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus.

Roman Catholics argue that the Greek word "until" (v 25) can be used in one of two ways. The first way would be to imply an action is not going to take place until something happens. I might say "My son is not going to get his driver's license until he turns 16." In this case I am saying the action, getting a driver's license, will be delayed until my son turns 16. The implication is that after he turns 16 he will get his driver's license. Since the action is future and predicated on a condition, there is always a chance it won't happen. You could say, "the store doesn't open until 9 am." There is always a chance the store won't open at 9 am. Unlikely but if there was a power outage the store might have to delay opening. In this case "until" speaks to intent. The intent is to open the store at 9 am. However, "until" can be used in the past tense. "I did not graduate from college until I was 22 years old." I have already graduated from college. I am here stating a condition (being 22 years old) that qualifies my having graduated from college.

A second way in which "until" can be used is to say something like "She never had children until her death." This is just another way of saying she never had children. In this case, the action "having children" never took place because the condition was death which precludes all possibility of the action taking place. If instead I said, "she did not have children until she was 35", would imply she did have children after she turned 35. If I am saying it in the past tense, it would not make sense if she never had children. "Until death" is a terminating condition. "Until 35", assuming the person is still alive or died sometime after turning 35, is not.

They argue this to insist that v 25 does not teach that Mary and Joseph had relations after Jesus was born. They believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary so argue that this use of "until" does not indicate an end to Mary's virginity. They like to cite verses like 2 Samuel 6:23:

Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death. (2 Samuel 6:23, KJV)

I have seen Catholics quote this verse where "unto" is "until" but let's look at the New Catholic Bible (NCB) translation:

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

Here it is "to" not "until." Out of 56 English translations of the Bible, only 2 use the word "until." Most translated it "to the day of her death."

View attachment 345112
To say she had no children "to the day of her death" shows a continuing action directed toward a point (in time in this case namely her death). We should remember that 2 Samuel 6:23 is being translated from Hebrew not Greek so comparing it to a verse like Matthew 1:25 is apples to oranges. We shall see why in a bit.

Let's look at the Greek word used in Matthew 1:25. Here, it is nearly always translated "till" or "until".

View attachment 345113

When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. (Matthew 2:9)

And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. (Matthew 24:39)

In these two verses, also written by Matthew, the word "until" is used of an action known to have been completed. We know from his account the star did stand still over Bethlehem. We also know the flood did take place. He was using the Greek for "until" to indicate an action that was accomplished after a condition was met. This is the same Greek word as the one used in Matthew 1:25.

View attachment 345115
In Matthew 1:25, "until" is used in the equivalent of the Latin future perfect which as we can see above emphasizes an action that will take place at some point in the future. It does not mean the action might happen but will happen.

You cannot compare a sentence like "She did not have children until death" to "They did not have children until they got married." Both use the word "until" but in the first case the condition of death prevents the action "have children" from taking place. It terminates the possibility. "Until they got married" does not terminate the action. In fact, in this instance it is being used in the past tense as they have already gotten married.

Matthew's gospel was not written until years after these events had taken place. Matthew knew whether or not Mary and Joseph had other children besides Jesus. His use of "until" is not ambiguous. He is stating an action "kept her a virgin" was conditioned upon the condition "she gave birth to a son." Once that condition was met, the action will have ceased.

We should also note that in Hebrew, this same ambiguity does not exist. While 2 Samuel 6:23 uses the word "until" in English, the Hebrew word for "until" is not found in the Hebrew text. In the Septuagint, the Greek word for "until" is used as the English word "until" is used in the English translation (though only two English translations). This is used for our readability but does not mean the Hebrew word for "until" was used. In Greek, English, and Latin, the word "until" can be used in the past tense to indicate an action that took place after a condition was met.

Catholics are trying to imply ambiguity where none exists. The clear meaning of Matthew 1:25 is that Mary and Joseph refrained from relations before Jesus was born but had them after that. More explicit wording would have been used if the intent was to say they never had relations after Jesus was born. The truth is, the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity is a presupposition being applied to the text and is not a natural reading of the text.
As you've been told, the Greek word says nothing about the future. You certainly appeared to concede this point when you said ""You are making a point I already conceded in my statement. It doesn't prove that they didn't have relations after the birth of Jesus." The examples from the Bible using the same Greek word reinforces your concession. As to this latest post I must say it's like you're going out to different websites and grabbing new material.
 
Upvote 0

NotUrAvgGuy

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2015
1,003
417
Boise, Idaho
Visit site
✟70,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
As you've been told, the Greek word says nothing about the future. You certainly appeared to concede this point when you said ""You are making a point I already conceded in my statement. It doesn't prove that they didn't have relations after the birth of Jesus." The examples from the Bible using the same Greek word reinforces your concession. As to this latest post I must say it's like you're going out to different websites and grabbing new material.
You obviously did not read or understand my latest post. You forget that Matthews's account was written years later. Certainly after the death of Jesus and long after Mary and Joseph would have had other children. He is writing about what already took place. He is not giving us information about the future. He is writing about the past. Saying the Greek word says nothing about the future does not apply.

I could write "I did not have sex until after I got married." That's true. I didn't but it's already past. I am not saying "I won't have sex until I get married." That would be me talking about a yet future time. In that case, there would be no guarantee as it was yet in the future. When I speak of a past event, as Matthew is in Matthew 1:25, that changes everything.

In my last post, I provided 2 examples of Matthew's use of the word "until" that also spoke of past, realized events demonstrating that the Greek word for "until" can be used to speak of past events in which case the "until" has already taken place.

The only website I went to, was biblegateway.com to look at the Greek and Hebrew and use some language tools. Except where I inserted those screen captures from that site, everything else I wrote was my own thinking. Not that it should matter. We all do research as we are not all linguistic experts and benefit from the scholarship of others. What I wrote was the product of my own thinking and only grabbed "new material" from that one site and only about linguistics.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jas3

Active Member
Jan 21, 2023
257
149
Southeast
✟27,261.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I must correct myself and say from the modern Protestant perspective. I would disagree with Martin Luther on this point.
I respect your candor, and I agree that by and large this is the modern Protestant position. It seems to me that this reversal of doctrine should be deeply concerning for modern Protestants.
Virginity is being put on a pedestal as though it is a holier state. Relations between a married couple was God's plan. There is nothing unholy about it.
It is a holier state. That doesn't mean marital relations are unholy or contrary to God's plan, only that there are degrees of holiness between states. For example, there is nothing inherently wrong with reading a novel. But it is holier to read the Bible.

Paul says it is an advantage to ministry to not have the concerns of a wife/family but says it is better to marry than to burn (with lust).
Paul doesn't say anything about it being an advantage to ministry, he just says it's better in general because then anyone, man or woman, can focus on pleasing the Lord instead of a spouse. It does follow from that that it would be an advantage to ministry, but he includes women, who were not in ministry.
Scripture never puts virginity on a pedestal.
Sure it does, the 144,000 in Revelation are unique in part because "These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste..." (Rev. 14:4)
 
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
8,650
3,298
Minnesota
✟221,325.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married


You obviously did not read or understand my latest post. You forget that Matthews's account was written years later. Certainly after the death of Jesus and long after Mary and Joseph would have had other children. He is writing about what already took place. He is not giving us information about the future. He is writing about the past. Saying the Greek word says nothing about the future does not apply.

I could write "I did not have sex until after I got married." That's true. I didn't but it's already past. I am not saying "I won't have sex until I get married." That would be me talking about a yet future time. In that case, there would be no guarantee as it was yet in the future. When I speak of a past event, as Matthew is in Matthew 1:25, that changes everything.

In my last post, I provided 2 examples of Matthew's use of the word "until" that also spoke of past, realized events demonstrating that the Greek word for "until" can be used to speak of past events in which case the "until" has already taken place.

The only website I went to, was biblegateway.com to look at the Greek and Hebrew and use some language tools. Except where I inserted those screen captures from that site, everything else I wrote was my own thinking. Not that it should matter. We all do research as we are not all linguistic experts and benefit from the scholarship of others. What I wrote was the product of my own thinking and only grabbed "new material" from that one site and only about linguistics.
I did not understand the point you were trying to make but I think I do now. That doesn't change the fact that the Greek word says nothing about the future.
What can make a difference in the understanding of such a sentence is the rest of the sentence, particularly the subject of the "until." Let's just consider only English logic for the moment. In some cases the subject of the "until" makes the future clear, and in some it does not. If a sentence says "She was a virgin until she had sex" then we could conclude that she was not a virgin in the future. In the example "She had no children until the day she died" we could conclude that she did NOT have children after she died. Two different uses of the word "until" with opposite conclusions in logic. My point with Michal was to show that a completely difference conclusion could be derived than you had come to. It's not the word "until" that let's us know the future, it does not. In the case of Mary, the subject of the "until" is Jesus being born. As to the English construct, Jesus being born gives not even a hint as to Mary's virginity in the future.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

NotUrAvgGuy

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2015
1,003
417
Boise, Idaho
Visit site
✟70,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I respect your candor, and I agree that by and large this is the modern Protestant position. It seems to me that this reversal of doctrine should be deeply concerning for modern Protestants.
Not a concern. It is not necessary for modern Protestants to agree 100% with the Reformers. Luther and Calvin disagreed over communion. Luther felt there was a "real presence" whereas Calvin said it was a memorial. Neither held the Catholic position of transubstantiation but they differed. Their eschatology might have been different too but I don't recall. The main thrust of the Reformation was to call the church back to the Scriptures. Luther was especially concerned about the church selling indulgences and he had come to the realization that salvation was by faith alone and that works had no part in it. Both men, and others, focused on these issues above all others. I don't think they gave much thought to other doctrines. To be a Protestant does not mean you are in 100% agreement with the men who started the Reformation as they were not in 100% agreement. It is more the belief that salvation is by faith alone, by grace alone, and that our faith is based on Scripture alone.
It is a holier state. That doesn't mean marital relations are unholy or contrary to God's plan, only that there are degrees of holiness between states. For example, there is nothing inherently wrong with reading a novel. But it is holier to read the Bible.
I disagree.
Paul doesn't say anything about it being an advantage to ministry, he just says it's better in general because then anyone, man or woman, can focus on pleasing the Lord instead of a spouse. It does follow from that that it would be an advantage to ministry, but he includes women, who were not in ministry.
Women were very much involved in ministry, just not in leadership. Paul mentions some prominent women in the church.
Sure it does, the 144,000 in Revelation are unique in part because "These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste..." (Rev. 14:4)
The contrast in Revelation 14, is between the followers of the beast and the followers of the lamb. The Greek word translated "defiled" can also be used in the sense of "spiritual purity." Instead of engaging in illicit sex with women, they were keeping to marital sex or were celibate. It could be the beast, theywere all celibate but due to the times in which they lived rather than because it was a holier state. The point is, unlike the followers of the best, the 144,000 were righteous people. I have looked at quite a few commentaries and most agree this is talking about spiritual purity not sexual virginity.
 
Upvote 0

jas3

Active Member
Jan 21, 2023
257
149
Southeast
✟27,261.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Not a concern. It is not necessary for modern Protestants to agree 100% with the Reformers.
The concern is not about the agreement, it's about first teaching one thing and then teaching the opposite. If that's possible then any doctrine, up to and including the Trinity, is up for grabs, which is why we're seeing a rise in "oneness theology" and "biblical unitarianism" today.
Luther and Calvin disagreed over communion. Luther felt there was a "real presence" whereas Calvin said it was a memorial.
Calvin said it was a spiritual presence, Zwingli said it was completely a memorial.
Both men, and others, focused on these issues above all others. I don't think they gave much thought to other doctrines.
They had serious, drawn-out conflicts over other doctrines. Luther and Zwingli had a four-day debate on the Real Presence alone, and Luther thought Zwingli wasn't even a Christian because of his low view of the Eucharist. Calvin ensured that Michael Servetus was burned at the stake for being a unitarian. It was very much not an environment where as long as you believed in some form of sola scriptura and sola fide everything was good.
The Greek word translated "defiled" can also be used in the sense of "spiritual purity."
It can be, but whether or not the sense is spiritual is irrelevant to the fact that they are said to be in some sense pure by abstaining from or as if they had abstained from women (and there is no extra clause that says "except for licit relations," that's an interpretation you're reading into the text).

If you still don't accept that, though, take a look at Leviticus 15:18, which explicitly says marital relations make both the man and the woman ritually unclean even after they bathe, or Exodus 19:15, where Moses instructs the Israelites not to have marital relations in preparation for God appearing on Mount Sinai. Even though marriage is a good thing and instituted by God, there is an aspect of abstinence or continence that is more pure.
 
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
8,650
3,298
Minnesota
✟221,325.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Catholics seem to think that an ever-virgin Mary is somehow superior to a Mary who went on to have other children. Virginity is being put on a pedestal as though it is a holier state. Relations between a married couple was God's plan. There is nothing unholy about it. To say that having "regular children" after having Jesus would be a demeaning use of the womb that bore the savior is a human sentiment and Scripture never says that. The Catholic church insists on celibate priests and nuns yet Peter had a wife.
Have you ever had a Catholic tell you that? Please don't presume to lecture Catholics on relationships between a married couple being God's plan and lecture that there is nothing "unholy" about marital relations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoeT
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NotUrAvgGuy

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2015
1,003
417
Boise, Idaho
Visit site
✟70,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Have you ever had a Catholic tell you that? Please don't presume to lecture Catholics on relationships between a married couple being God's plan and lecture that there is nothing "unholy" about marital relations.
I have heard it and I was born and raised Catholic.
 
Upvote 0

NotUrAvgGuy

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2015
1,003
417
Boise, Idaho
Visit site
✟70,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The concern is not about the agreement, it's about first teaching one thing and then teaching the opposite. If that's possible then any doctrine, up to and including the Trinity, is up for grabs, which is why we're seeing a rise in "oneness theology" and "biblical unitarianism" today.
I understand it's a different experience than a church like the RC church where no doctrinal diversity is allowed. Protestantism is a big umbrella term. There are churches under that umbrella that get off into the weeds. I stick to churches that teach the Bible faithfully. While I do not think any one church is "the" church, I do test what churches teach by the Bible and I seek confirmation from respected Christian scholars. I don't just go with my own opinion. I check it. I don't believe God established a specific church or denomination. I believe that all churches that follow the Bible are part of "the church" on earth. Any church that questions the Trinity is not a Christian church.

I believe it is the essential doctrines that bind us—things like the Trinity, the deity of Christ, etc. There is room for differences of opinion on non-essentials like escathology. Even on the precise meaning of communion. The essentials are what make us Christians. I reject things like "oneness theology." They are not biblical.
Calvin said it was a spiritual presence, Zwingli said it was completely a memorial.

They had serious, drawn-out conflicts over other doctrines. Luther and Zwingli had a four-day debate on the Real Presence alone, and Luther thought Zwingli wasn't even a Christian because of his low view of the Eucharist. Calvin ensured that Michael Servetus was burned at the stake for being a unitarian. It was very much not an environment where as long as you believed in some form of sola scriptura and sola fide everything was good.
The Catholic church burned people at the stake as well. Luther might have been had not his country's ruler not intervened. Men like Jon Huss were.
It can be, but whether or not the sense is spiritual is irrelevant to the fact that they are said to be in some sense pure by abstaining from or as if they had abstained from women (and there is no extra clause that says "except for licit relations," that's an interpretation you're reading into the text).

If you still don't accept that, though, take a look at Leviticus 15:18, which explicitly says marital relations make both the man and the woman ritually unclean even after they bathe, or Exodus 19:15, where Moses instructs the Israelites not to have marital relations in preparation for God appearing on Mount Sinai. Even though marriage is a good thing and instituted by God, there is an aspect of abstinence or continence that is more pure.
The fact that it can refer to spiritual corruption is built into the definition of the Greek word. Lots of things could make one unclean. A woman's menstruation (which even a virgin has) made her unclean. Touching a dead body made you unclean. These things were cases of ceremonial uncleanliness. They were not considered sins. Why did God have a whole list of things that could make you unclean? I believe it was to impress upon us the absolute holiness of God and that man by comparison was not clean even when not sinning. A woman can't help menstruating. It is a natural function of her body yet it still made her unclean. If someone died in your arms as you attempted to save them, you were unclean but did nothing wrong. It wasn't just sexual-related things that could make you unclean.
 
Upvote 0

jas3

Active Member
Jan 21, 2023
257
149
Southeast
✟27,261.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Lots of things could make one unclean. A woman's menstruation (which even a virgin has) made her unclean. Touching a dead body made you unclean. These things were cases of ceremonial uncleanliness. They were not considered sins. Why did God have a whole list of things that could make you unclean? I believe it was to impress upon us the absolute holiness of God and that man by comparison was not clean even when not sinning.
All true, so I don't understand why you disagreed earlier that there can be degrees of holiness in non-sinful states. Yes, virgins could become unclean through things aside from their virginity, but virginity per se was not the cause of uncleanness.
 
Upvote 0

NotUrAvgGuy

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2015
1,003
417
Boise, Idaho
Visit site
✟70,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
All true, so I don't understand why you disagreed earlier that there can be degrees of holiness in non-sinful states. Yes, virgins could become unclean through things aside from their virginity, but virginity per se was not the cause of uncleanness.
I don't think they were less holy in a moral or spiritual sense. Just ceremonially unclean.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Chris35

Active Member
May 27, 2018
274
160
Melbourne
✟58,575.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Is Mary included when Jesus said this, since she was born of a woman.
 
Upvote 0