Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well, let's revisit this.
Now, does Matthews use of "until" mean what you say it does? Not necessarily. The Greek word for "until" (heos) does not imply that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Christ. In 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child "until" the day of her death. Does that mean she had children after she died? Hardly. So why does 'until' in Matthew mean that after the birth of Jesus there was physical congress?
Hebrews 1:13 and 1 Timothy 4:13 are other places where 'until' cannot mean what you think it means.
What is St. Matthews intent? Why do you interpret it was trying to here is not to explain what happened after the birth of Christ? He is writing about the period before the birth and is concerned to make it clear that Joseph and Mary had no relations before then. It is the virgin birth, not later siblings, that Matthew is concerned with.
You are effectively arguing that because Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for "until" whereas the texts I mentioned above from the New Testament use heos alone, there is a difference in meaning. The argument goes that Heos hou indicates the action of the first clause does not continue. Thus, Mary and Joseph "not having come together" would have ended after Jesus was born.
The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: "But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar."
Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was "sent" to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou.
Do ponder these points and see whether you may not be jumping to a certain conclusion.
If what you are after is a church which agrees with you, then fair enough. If you want the Church which pronounced on the nature of the NT, it also pronounced St. Mary ever Virgin. (Ephesus 431).
Here, the Orthodox and the Catholics, and some Anglicans agree. It may be that your incisive intellect alone pierces the cloud of unknowing; but it may be that others, who have walked with Christ before, have this right.
peace,
Anglian
Good luck, brother, and may the Lord guide you.I am going to ponder these points. But since as you point out I can only trust the church not the text I am going to check out and LDS church since they have Apostolic authority given to them by Christ and have produced the best Christ fruits I have seen with my own eyes.
All you have provided as evidence that the practice did not begin until later is your say so. I don't consider that a particularly reliable source.
For a Church that believes in Christ's victory over death, and in the unity of Christ's body the Church, seeking the intercessions of those members of the body who have finished the race is completely natural. It is a completely natural extension of our love for one another to continue to pray for each other and to seek each other's prayers, unless you believe death still has some hold over us.
Intercessory prayer of the Saints is completely in line with our theology. To the best of my knowledge it has never been necessary for the Church to explain how it 'fits in' because of people questioning the practice.
-snip-
-snip-
Our friend PilgrimToChrist posted some time ago Rev. 12:1-6, which is the Scriptural foundation for the practice, only to be told by MamaZ that this was not at all what it meant - in MamaZ's reading. Yet this is what Fathers such a Oecumenius read it as being. It seems unclear why we should prefer modern readings to those of the ancients.
-snip-
Oecumenius' Commentary sees this as the flight of the Virgin and the Holy Family into Egypt for 1260 days to escape from Herod (the dragon), hence the tradition, preserved in my Church, that the Holy family spent just over three and a half years in Egypt.Rev. 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred [and] threescore days.
How did the early church understand the "they" and the 1260 days?
She did state that you could say that Mary was a goddess.. She also said you could say that God diefied Mary..
We are saying the same thing - that St. Mary is not a goddess.
Do read what Pilgrim wrote.
peace,
Anglian
Well this is why we are to keep scripture in context. For we read in Revelation that these are things to come. Not things that have happened..Oecumenius' Commentary sees this as the flight of the Virgin and the Holy Family into Egypt for 1260 days to escape from Herod (the dragon), hence the tradition, preserved in my Church, that the Holy family spent just over three and a half years in Egypt.
peace,
Anglian
In your opinion. Looking to Scripture we see in 2 Maccabees both prayer for the deceased (2 Macc 12:42-45) and the intercessory prayer of the deceased (2 Macc 15:12-16)If I were you, I'd try to find justification for my practice. Scripture is best. The earlier in history the more likely for the apostles and first elders to have done it as well. Barring that, you have a man-made tradition at best.
Based on your say so. I believe Thekla has provided evidence that it was Jewish practice to seek the intercession of saints prior to the coming of Christ.Good point. That's why it is imperative to understand that the apostles and very early church didn't practice asking the deceased saints for prayer.
It does not show that they didn't practice it.Another good point. It shows us that they didn't practice it, that it wasn't controversial, that they obeyed apostolic teaching.
I'm sorry, but your opinion that this is so is not evidence of such.Later on, Christians asked about its source and found that it arose out from acorn-to-oak thinking. It is a witness against itself.
By which she meant you would read it that way; you have just shown she was right.She did state that you could say that Mary was a goddess.. She also said you could say that God diefied Mary..
The context is the Church which tells us that the Apocalypse in Scripture. It is what was, is, and is to come. One should never seek to restrict the workings of the Holy Spirit.Well this is why we are to keep scripture in context. For we read in Revelation that these are things to come. Not things that have happened..
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
And just what kind of gods are men suppose to be?By which she meant you would read it that way; you have just shown she was right.
we are all, as St. Peter wrote, to be deified. Understood aright, this is our fate. As St. Athanasius wrote: 'God became man so that men could become gods'.
peace,
Anglian
So thenThe context is the Church which tells us that the Apocalypse in Scripture. It is what was, is, and is to come. One should never seek to restrict the workings of the Holy Spirit.
peace,
Anglian
And just what kind of gods are men suppose to be?
Indeed. You seem to wish to confine the interpretation of the whole book by these two verses. There is a rich history of exegesis, I quoted part of it, you disagree because it does not fit what you think it ought to mean. This isn't much of a basis for discussion really. I quote from the fathers and tradition, you say you don't agree. I think by this stage we know you agree with your interpretation of Scriptures; I think everyone can do thatSo then
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Rev 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
This is not true? The Holy Spirit works according to the written word of God for they bear witness to one another.. There is only one truth.
How very Ken Copeland likeThis kind from 2 Peter 1:
2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, 3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, 4 by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
This is the basis of the doctrine of theosis.
peace,
Anglian
No idea who he is, but the concept of theosis is a crucial part of Orthodox theology, and, of course, it does not mean we become God (there is always a small g) it means that we realise the divine image in which we are made. That, after all, is the purpose of our creation.How very Ken Copeland likei had a thread on here a while back called...
It started in the garden...about this very topic.
I would say that what Peter was getting at here could more accurately be described thusly...By being partakers of the divine nature it seems to me at least that Peter is/was saying when we are born-again we are given everything necessary for life and godliness...Not that we become divine by any means. I mean is that not part of the riches of our salvation?
In an effort for my understanding could you briefly describe what theosisi is and what is the end result of it?No idea who he is, but the concept of theosis is a crucial part of Orthodox theology, and, of course, it does not mean we become God (there is always a small g) it means that we realise the divine image in which we are made. That, after all, is the purpose of our creation.
peace,
Anglian
ps. Good to see you back Simon
As for the LDS, I know nothing about it save it is a late, man made novelty; I guess they all get indistinguishable on the cafeteria menu after a while
St. Athanasius said:God became Man, that man might become god.
Mormon leader Lorenzo Snow said:As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?