Thursday, January 01, 2015

The heos hou / ἕως οὗ construction in the New Testament proves the RC Perpetual Virginity of Mary dogma wrong


Who is My Mother? by Eric Svendsen

I answered the very persistent and redundant "Guy Fawkes" / Jim, who lives in Portugal and apparently has lots of time to keep repeating himself, after being refuted many times, in a combox: (with additional comments)

Regarding Matthew 1:18 - "before they came together"
and
Matthew 1:25 - Joseph "kept her a virgin until" (heos hou / ἕως οὗ ) "she gave birth to a son"

 "but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."


"And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife25  but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."  Matthew 1:24-25

24 ἐγερθεὶς δὲ  Ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕπνου ἐποίησεν ὡς προσέταξεν αὐτῷ  ἄγγελος κυρίουκαὶ παρέλαβεν τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ· 
25 καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν  ἕως οὗ  
ἔτεκεν υἱόν· καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν.  (I don't know why the Greek font gets smaller after the embolding of ἕως οὗ )

Note:  For those who don't know Greek, the mark above the letter that is like a backwards apostrophe is a breathing mark, "he" or "h" sound. (above the ε in the first word, and above the υ in the second word.)

Guy Fawkes / Jim,
I just don't have much time to keep repeating this stuff; you seem to have too much time on your hands.  You have not done research on the differences between "heos" / 'εως by itself, "heos hou" / 'εως 'ου,  and the other prepositional phrases (heos hotou / 'εως 'οτου ; and heos an / 'εως αν, and ἄχρι οὗ / axri hou - see 1 Cor. 15:25) and syntactical constructions - the Greek NT has many different ones, and all the examples that Roman Catholics bring to mean "until, but continuing on after that also" are NOT the heos hou / 'εως 'ου construction .  They are other constructions.

Guy Fawkes/Jim wrote: 
The passages from Matthew you mention are based on the words "before/until". 
It is important to stress Jesus had no human father so the word "before" says that and nothing more.

"before they came together" is in the context of marriage - so that means "having sexual intercourse" in marriage.  " [ see context: (verse 18) - "betrothed" with intention of getting married; "Joseph, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife" (verse 20); "Joseph did as the angel commanded him, and took her as his wife" (verse 24), "but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son . . . " (verse 25)]

Guy Fawkes / Jim wrote:
"Until" does not need to mean a change took place after a particular event.

But it does in this context.  As Eric Svendsen has definitively demonstrated,

"This construction [of heos hou / 'εως 'ου] is used in Matthew 1:25 and so is of special interest here.  It occurs only seventeen times in the NT, and all are temporal.  Two of these have the meaning "while" (Matthew 14:22; 26:36), whereas the other 15 occurrences are instances in which the action of the main clause is limited by the action of subordinate clause and require the meaning, "until a specific time, (but not after)".
(Svendsen, Who is My Mother?  page 52)

On page 251 he lists all the occurrances in the NT of the heos hou / 'εως 'ου construction with the English verses typed out.  It is a lot to type out, but with the verse thingy that James put in here, I can type the verse references and then you can hover over them to see:

Matthew 1:25

Matthew 13:33

Matthew 14:22 (while)

Matthew 17:9

Matthew 18:34

Matthew 26:36 (while)

Luke 13:21

Luke 15:8

Luke 22:18

Luke 24:49

John 13:38

Acts 21:26

Acts 23:12

Acts 23:14

Acts 23:21

Acts 25:21

2 Peter 1:19


You will have to go to http://biblewebapp.com/study/

or some other place to see the Greek constructions.

Svendsen also goes through all the LXX constructions; but this is enough to prove you wrong.

93 comments:

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

Happy Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God.

As you mention how you have refuted me repeatedly, I guess it is only fitting ( pardon the Duns Scotus pun ) that I start of the comments.

I see you have done a lot of work on the Greek grammar involved here. I am sorry to disappoint you but I am going to have to appeal to Luther's (?) saying about all that is needed for any German plow boy to be his own Pope is to be able to read a Bible. I am no more conversant in Greek than that scruffy plow boy. Like David, I stand before your Greek speaking Goliath, armed only with my shoddy KJV slingshot and an ill fitting loincloth.

The projectile I will lead off with is borrowed from from the great biblical scholar, St. Jerome who refuted the evil heretic Helvidius for suggesting Mary not to have been a lifelong Virgin. Helvidius was taking his cue from another fellow who fell from grace, Tertullian. Tertullian's denial was not based on his study of the Bible but was based solely on his opposition to the flesh denying Docetists. He was intent on proving Christ shared in our humanity and to do so went so far as to insist that Christ was physically ugly and that his mother was just an average mom in an average marriage. His interest was not in refuting Mary's special privilege at all but in only in stressing Jesus' true humanness and in doing so committed a terrible gaff.

Anyway, Jerome brought out 2nd Samuel 6:20-23 which says,

"Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!
And David said unto Michal, It was before the LORD, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over Israel: therefore will I play before the LORD.
And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour.

Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child *unto* the day of her death."

( It is ironic that Ken here is, like hapless Michal, scoffing at Catholics for reveling before the true Ark of the Covenant, the Woman of Rev. 12, the Great Mother of God, Mary, Most Holy! )

Anyway, Jerome playfully quipped back by asking if we are to assume Michal bore children AFTER she had died. ( Ha! )

Then he had some more fun by saying that since Helvidius did not repent UNTIL the day he died, we should not therefore assume he repented AFTER she died. ( Again, a hearty Ha! Ha! )

As this is Protestant blog, dedicated to the writings of the Reformers and their manipulation of scripture, and since I have already felled the Giant with my hieronymite stone, I will lift his own sword and chop off his head with this from Calvin,

"Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding Mary had other sons...".

Our own gracious host, James Swan, has featured an article revealing that Luther and Zwingli concurred in Helvidius being the heretic when it came to this subject.

Sorry about using the KJV but, once again, I can't read Greek as well as you and the other guys on this blog. I am just a simple layman.

Have a great New Year!









Unknown said...

Guy Fawkes:

Mary has been refuted here as the ever virgin and yet you refer to an anecdote to Jerome and Helvidius?

I am sorry but if I was you, I would dedicate my whole life (and even take up Greek myself) to figuring out what the Greek is and trust that God will bring me to the truth about Mary.

No wonder people find you ingratiating. You are simply interested in spouting from your soapbox, plugging your ears with your fingers, and saying "la la la". You are not interested in the truth at all.

Ken said...

It is amazing that you repeat this, when I already showed you (in earlier combox discussions, and yet you ignored this) that 2 Sam. 6:23 has heos / ἕως by itself, but does not have heos hou / ἕως οὗ, as Matthew 1:25 does. Svendsen goes through the heos construction by itself and other constructions that can mean what you want it to mean for Mary, but heos hou in the NT almost always means "until that point in time, with a change or stopping of that action before that time" (15 times out of 17 - the other two times in the NT meaning "while" - NONE of them in the NT with heos hou mean "until, and continuing on after that", which is required for the Perpetual virginity dogma.

"Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child *unto* the day of her death." 2 Sam. 6:23

καὶ τῇ Μελχολ θυγατρὶ Σαουλ οὐκ ἐγένετο παιδίον ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας τοῦ ἀποθανεῖν αὐτήν

2 Sam. 6:23 LXX

Matthew 1:25
καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν

As regarding Luther's quote, of course, even without the Greek, anyone can see that given the context of marriage, that our position is the correct one; but because of the bad example that Jerome (and Chrysostom) gave of Michal in 2 Sam. 6:23 LXX, (and others), it forced deeper study of the Greek prepositional phrases.

Also, our reading of "brothers and sisters" of the Lord in English is also the most natural reading (per the plowboy illustration of Luther); but because Jerome gave the goofy argument of brothers meaning "cousin"; then the deeper study of Greek exposed his mistake.

Since the Greek has words for "kinsman" and "relative" - sungenis / συγγενις

and cousin

anepsios
ανεψιος

in Colossians 4:10; your argument is again destroyed.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

PS,

You mentioned, " "Guy Fawkes" / Jim, who lives in Portugal and apparently has lots of time to keep repeating himself, after being refuted many times,...".

It's not that I have so much dead time on my hands Ken, it is that I make time to repeat myself in order to help you realize your dignity as both a son of God and a son of Mary. Not in the same way as Jesus was of course, but in the order of grace.

I am not sure what the significance of my living in a glamorous casino resort area on the Portuguese coast, drinking port wine in sidewalk cafes and saying, " Ciao darlings" to other bon vivants like myself is, but since you bring it up, I would like to say that Portuguese artists never depict the kings or queens of Portugal as wearing crowns. Never. Only Jesus and Mary are seen wearing crowns in this land that recognizes the Ever Virgin Mary to be Queen of Heaven and Earth.

So, thanks for giving me an opportunity to share that delightful bit of trivia with the guys who blog here. They can drop these little tid- bits at their next cocktail party or around the water cooler at work. They will really impress people, especially the women.

guy fawkes said...

Unknown,

I said "I" didn't read Greek. My grandfather got off the boat from there and he spoke it as his native tongue. He was a member of the Greek Orthodox Church and believed Mary to be Ever Virgin.

Ken said...

In Luke 1:36, sungenis, συγγενις , means "kinswoman", "relative"

Since the Greek language has both that and "cousin" in Colossians 4:10, Jerome's argument about "Jesus' brothers and sisters" was and is destroyed.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

Now who is repeating himself?

I already posted the info to you. Please click on and give up a few minutes of your time to actually read it.

Ken said...

Luther never said the plow boy could be his own "Pope"; just that everyone should have the Scriptures available in their own native language; inherent in the command to "make disciples of all the nations (ταντα τα εθνη - all the ethnic people groups" )

Even though you don't know Greek, I have provided you with the ability to at least look at all the verses and compare them with the Greek script and see that our argument defeats yours.

You are intelligent enough to at least look and see the difference between heos hou and heos by itself and look up the references and check Svendsen's book.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

While I have not read Svendsen's stuff, I am sure I have seen his name mentioned by people whose scholarship and motives I do trust. ( You know my position on ex-Catholics already so don't ask ).

I do take a delight in seeing how modern day Protestants distance themselves from Luther, Calvin and Zwingli though. If only they would wake up to JBFA!
I take it you consider yourself more of a Svendsenist than a Calvinist these days, right Ken?

I am sorry you are so hell bent on not being a child of Mary, Ken. It baffles me as to why anyone would work so hard to NOT take Mary to himself as any true "Beloved Disciple" would do.
And why any man would waste his intelligence and precious time impugning his own mother's ( or the mother of his Lord ) holiness, purity and Virginity, is beyond me.
Your obsession with making the Mother of Christ into a silly ninny who forgot she had miraculously conceived the Savior of the world and went on to live a mundane and sinful life like the rest of us is dumbfounding.
But if you are sure you want no part of Mary, that is your loss, Ken. I am truly sorry for you.
Keep dredging up the Svendsens and the Websters and other lapsed catholic malcontents til doomsday. I guarantee that you are not going to make your case from the Bible, the Fathers, common sense nor your own heroes, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.

I wish I read Greek as well as you seem to. I am sure I could win on that one too.

Ken said...

Guy Fawkes / Jim wrote:
And why any man would waste his intelligence and precious time impugning his own mother's ( or the mother of his Lord ) holiness, purity and Virginity, is beyond me.

Why or how does it impugn upon Mary's holiness or purity?

Believer's in Christ are holy in Christ, saints, sanctified. And sex in marriage is holy and pure.



Ken said...

But if you are sure you want no part of Mary, that is your loss, Ken. I am truly sorry for you.

I honor the Biblical Mary as a model of a believing woman, having humility, faith, immersed in the OT Scriptures, and obedient to the Lord.

She is full of the OT Scripture in her magnificent and she is humble and obedient. She was a virgin until after Christ was born, after already being married, which is godly and virtuous.

She "treasured up all these things in her heart" - Luke 2:19- a wonderful description that is similar to Psalm 119:11

Ken said...

Guy Fawkes / Jim wrote:
Your obsession with making the Mother of Christ into a silly ninny who forgot she had miraculously conceived the Savior of the world and went on to live a mundane and sinful life like the rest of us is dumbfounding.

Again, you say that a normal sexual marriage is sinful. Your real attitude comes through.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
"Again, you say that a normal sexual marriage is sinful. Your real attitude comes through."

So, you want to put words in my mouth, eh? Fine. I will put some in yours.

You must obviously believe Paul to be a prudish freak. Jesus too. You as much as say so don't try to squirm out of it.

Neither of them took wives if I recall. As a matter of fact, they both praised celibacy for the Kingdom of heaven. Jesus basically says in Lk 18 that it is a sure fire guarantee of making it to heaven.
But you know better, eh Pastor Ken?

zipper778 said...

And this is just more proof that guy fawkes is uninterested in dealing with the evidence that Ken has presented. Do you get this nasty everytime you lose a debate guy?

Ken said...

Guy Fawkes / Jim -
Since you have so much time on your hands, and apparently have retired to Portugal ( I am assuming, correct me if I am wrong) why don't you take a course in New Testament Greek?

Zipper is right, you don't seem interested in dealing with the evidence.

What percentage of Portugal is practicing/believing Roman Catholic?

I ask this because high percentages of Italy, France, Spain are atheist/agnostic/pagan - even though baptized in the RC church as babies.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

Let's talk Greek.

You are really impressed by Yankee Swede Eric Svendsen's facility in Greek as a second language, huh? Or at least his understanding of an archaic style that only scholars can read.

While I am a Catholic and believe St. Joseph to be the husband of Mary and a life-long virgin too, I am going to muddy your waters with my grandfather's position as a Greek Orthodox Christian. He spoke Greek. His Church has never stopped using the Greek for the days of the Apostles. Would you concede them to be almost as conversant in the language as your Swede Svendsen?

You do know, of course, that the Greeks also believe Mary to be a Perpetual Virgin.
They say those brothers you keep harping on to be Joseph's by a previous marriage. Can you prove them wrong? You know, from the Bible. The Greek Bible, that is.

In the Orthodox Church, betrothal is almost as binding as marriage. Notice, Joseph was planning to divorce his way out of it.
The Greeks are quick to point out that the Bible never actually calls Joseph the husband of Mary. Only the "betrothed". Scripture itself doesn't say Mary and Joseph ever moved beyond the betrothed state.

( In a previous post I told you how, according to the Mosaic Law, Joseph could not have relations with Mary after she had conceived a baby by someone other than himself. It was forbidden. Yet he was free to provide for her just as David provided for his concubines after Absalom had violated them ).

In the Bible, Mary calls Joseph Jesus' father in Luke's Gospel. Was he, Ken? The Bible says so, doesn't it? Or does it use the word "father" in a qualified sense? Like it uses the word "brother".

So, by taking Eric Svendsen's Greek as gospel, you basically accuse the Greeks of not knowing their own language background.

Ken, after you have successfully shown the Greeks to not know the Greek Bible, then you can come against the Catholics, Okay?

I guess I won't be hearing from you again as I have just given you an impossible task.



guy fawkes said...

Ken,

Speaking of not dealing with the evidence! I thought you were interested in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Portugal is pretty zealous, Ken.
I think you ( and Swede Sven ) should be more concerned with the atheism that has totally taken over Scandinavia ( except for the Muslims ). Few babies are born in wedlock and suicide is off the charts ).

Ken said...

John R. W. Stott was a good example of a Protestant minister, who had the gift of singleness and never married.

Also, Southern Baptist missionary Lottie Moon.
C. H. Toy proposed marriage to Lottie, but Lottie turned him down because of his liberalism. Later Toy became a unitarian and apostate.

Also, Amy Carmichael.

There are many others; but it is not a forced eccelsiastical bondage as your false church has made it for its priests.

So, those verses are all understood as for those who have the gift of singleness, which Paul calls a Charimata in 1 Corinthians 7.

Ken said...

The above comment was in response to your comment about celibacy for the kingdom of God.

Neither of them took wives if I recall. As a matter of fact, they both praised celibacy for the Kingdom of heaven. Jesus basically says in Lk 18 that it is a sure fire guarantee of making it to heaven.
But you know better, eh Pastor Ken?


As far as the Greek language and NT Koine Greek and the Greek Orthodox Church goes; well -

1. There are lots of deep grammatical issues that I cannot explain in English, even though I am a native English speaker. People who get Phd's in English grammar could certaiinly tie me in knots on complicated grammatical rules, syntax, structure.

2. It would be interesting to see if a Greek Orthodox scholar actually interacted with Svendsen's argument from the NT examples and the different prepositional constructions.

3. There are a lot of doctrines that the Greek Orthodox gets wrong also, as they, like the RC Church allowed man-made traditions and rituals to become the dominant emphasis that eclipsed justification by faith alone (but not as much as RC, since RC has the Papacy heresies; and some in a few different areas - icons, mysteries, Theosis) (and they don't think the Bible teaches Original Sin/guilt as Augustine taught).

Ken said...

Paul calls singleness / lifelong celibacy, a Charisma / charismata

χαρισμα - spiritual gift, gift of the Spirit, gift of grace

in 1 Corinthians 7:7

7:7 θέλω δὲ πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἶναι ὡς καὶ ἐμαυτόν ἀλλὰ ἕκαστος ἴδιον ἔχει χάρισμα ἐκ θεοῦ ὁ μὲν οὕτως ὁ δὲ οὕτως

Ken said...

Guy Fawkes / Jim wrote:
They say those brothers you keep harping on to be Joseph's by a previous marriage

yes, because they know Greek, they know Jerome's argument that "brothers" means "cousins" is bogus.

Thanks; that is an extra point for my side of the argument.

Ken said...

"In 2012, a study conducted by the Catholic University revealed 79.5% of the Portuguese considered themselves Catholics, and that 18% attended Mass regularly. " The wikipedia article on Portugal

Only 18% attend Mass regularly - isn't that a mortal sin, to not attend mass regularly?

I agree with you about Sweden - most all of western Europe has gone post-Christian and apostate. State churches are not right; breeds nominalism, and then later, apostasy.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2DteagmRmo

Enjoy the first 5 minutes or so of a debate between your pal TurretinFan and a Catholic guy on this Heos Hu issue.

Go ahead an harness your wagon ( and your salvation ) to Sven's expertise in Greek. By the way, how old was he when he started studying ancient Greek? Unless he learned it as a child, he has never learned it as well as a native speaker. ( I have lived in Portugal about 15 years. I don't speak the language as well as 5 year old Portuguese child. No adult learner ever learns any language like a native speaker does. Never. While I may be able to read a newspaper better than the little child, I will never think in Portuguese like he does. )

I will go with Chrysostom, the most famous of the Greek Fathers. He actually used the language every day of his life. While he didn't write a lot on Mary, he did address this "until" business and the "brothers" too. I bet he had a pretty good handle on what Heos hu and adelphos meant.

Why you continued posting a bunch of Greek at me, I don't know. I told you already you are wasting your energy as I neither read Greek nor do I trust any anti-Catholics ability to translate certain passages of the Greek scriptures honestly. We Catholics have a few Greek scholars of our own. I trust them over you, Ken. No offense meant.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD67oYfvg_s

Interested in Portugal? Watch this.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

You sure did a whole lot of question begging when you wrote this one,

" ...the RC Church allowed man-made traditions and rituals to become the dominant emphasis that eclipsed justification by faith alone...".

Ken, Luther invented JBFA. Hasn't anybody ever told you that?

You want to quibble about if, where and when Martin Luther said his "plow boy/Pope" goody, eh?

Didn't he also say every milk maid can be her own pope too? I have read he did.

Speaking of maids, isn't Luther known to have said, " If the wife is unwilling, the kitchen maid will do"?

( He was an expert on matrimony vs celibacy, wasn't he ).

Ever see John MacArthur's video on Luther and infant Baptism? He says Luther could not have understood JBFA properly!

Oh Ken, don't try to buffalo me!

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

The Bible has this,

""Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?"

Hmmmmm? The very same passage that names Jesus' brothers also calls Jesus the son of Joseph.
Was Jesus the natural son of Joseph, Ken? No? The KJV Bible says he was. Mary even said once to Jesus, "Your father and I have been searching for you". (Lk 2:48 )

Here is Mark 6:3.

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?"

Please sir, could you show me exactly where it says these other men were the sons of Mary any more than Jesus was the son of Joseph?
You can show me in Greek if you prefer it to the English. I know enough Greek to understand*.

* I actually know about two words my Greek grandfather taught my mom who in turn taught me. That is more than sufficient to refute you on this.

zipper778 said...

Guy,

Matt. 13:55 and Mark 6:3 are talking about Jesus, not about His entire family history. Assuming that you have siblings, it would be the same thing as me saying that I am replying to Jim who is the son of [your father and/or mother] and his [sibling/s] are [their names]. That doesn't mean that your siblings don't have the same parents that you do.

So far guy, you haven't done anything that disproves Ken. Ken brought up ACTUAL evidence for his position. You on the other hand have stated that you like Jerome's position, that you don't know Koine Greek but if you did you would be able to dismantle Ken's argument. That isn't a real argument guy. What if I told you that as soon as I found all of ghe writings of the ECF's and read them and reported about them I would be able to dismantle the Roman Catholic Church? Would that be convincing? Of course not.

Step it up guy. Ken does.

eltheoldsoul said...

Ken,

Are there rules for commenting here? Guy refuses to engage. What otherwise can be a great discussion (if he actually engaged in the argument), he turns into chaos. Is this why he was banned from other sites?

JimBrooks1776 said...

Zipper,
Guy will most likely not be stepping it up.

JimBrooks1776 said...

eltheoldsoul,
James said appx. six (IIRC) weeks ago that Guy served as a useful foil. I asked if that was still the case appx. three weeks ago. He's either trolling or tone deaf, either way you're right, he brings the level of discourse down. Unless you're worried about his immortal soul and feel as if you're doing the Lord's work by evangelizing, it would be better if we all just ignored him #MyTwoCents.

James Swan said...

eltheoldsoul said...Ken,Are there rules for commenting here? Guy refuses to engage. What otherwise can be a great discussion (if he actually engaged in the argument), he turns into chaos. Is this why he was banned from other sites?

Ken is free to moderate his blog entries as he sees fit. The only time I dump comments are as follows:

1) Use of profanity or vulgarity

2) Disrespect for those I consider mentors or friends.

3) Old comments to old blog entries may or may not be posted. Often these are just "drive by" hits.

4) There are a few people that I no longer allow to make comments. One anonymous individual figured out quickly all his comments would be deleted, and disappeared into the depths of cyber-space.

Overall, there is wide range of freedom here to comment as one wishes. Guy Fawkes does challenges the harmony of this freedom by excessive comments that are often personal assaults, inconsistent meanderings, rabbit trails and non sequiturs. But: that's how anonymous cyber-bullies usually behave

zipper778 said...

JimBrooks said:

"Zipper,
Guy will most likely not be stepping it up."

This is sad but you're probably correct. However, I was looking at a couple of his old comments and he did leave this behind:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/brethren-of-the-lord

It is at the end of a blog post that nobody seems to be responding to anymore, but I believe that it does deserve attention, afterall, I would like it if he would go to a url that I posted (even though I know he refused to). I don't have time to read the article that guy gave us in that url, but I plan to address it later. Anyone else is welcome to examine it if I don't get the chance to in the near future.

guy fawkes said...

Zip, Brooksie and elt,

I you spoofing me? I have not proven Ken to be wrong?

Are you forgetting that Ken is the one trying to prove the innovation? Even Calvin said it was "folly" to try to do what Ken has taken upon himself to prove. ( Glad you boys disagree with Calvin ).

I have de-fanged everyone of his assertions and am still waiting for him to begin to engage mine.

But since he has moved on to another thread and left this one behind, maybe you fellows could step up to the plate and answer the following;

Jesus doesn't have any siblings when He is found in the temple at age 12.
Yet Ken says He had at least 4. So, after 12 years of barrenness, Mary popped out 4 boys and some girls in quick succession.
Do you guys know anything about women? Is this normal?

James, Simon and Jude were all Apostles and therefore believers.
Why was Mary given to Zebedee's son for safe keeping instead of one of these believing brothers?

James was a "brother" of the Lord and an Apostle according to Galatians.
Yet both James had fathers other than Joseph. Explain.

Jude and James have both a brother to brother relationship and a father to son relationship. Explain.

Please prove the Greek Orthodox position wrong that says the brothers were either Joseph's sons by a previous marriage or were adopted. Use the Bible to do so.

Why is Mary called "Ever Virgin" by the early Church?

The Prophecy of Is 7 say a Virgin will conceive and GIVE BIRTH ( as a Virgin ). Sounds like Virginity in Partu. Please comment.

Please address how the Reformers got it wrong on this. Couldn't they read the Bible correctly?

How about you, eltheoldsoul? You say I don't engage. I am engaging you right now. Please address what I just asked.

Brooksie and Zipper, give your friend a chance to respond before jumping in.


zipper778 said...

Guy said:

"I you spoofing me? I have not proven Ken to be wrong?"

That's what I said, yes.

"Are you forgetting that Ken is the one trying to prove the innovation? Even Calvin said it was "folly" to try to do what Ken has taken upon himself to prove. ( Glad you boys disagree with Calvin )."

The only innovation here is the PV of Mary.

"I have de-fanged everyone of his assertions and am still waiting for him to begin to engage mine."

Ken brought up the original language (Koine Greek) and your reply was that you didn't know that language so his argument is unfair to you. You then prove that that is your position by showing can a passage in a language that he probably isn't familiar with.

"Jesus doesn't have any siblings when He is found in the temple at age 12.
Yet Ken says He had at least 4. So, after 12 years of barrenness, Mary popped out 4 boys and some girls in quick succession.
Do you guys know anything about women? Is this normal?"

You are assuming that the reason there are no siblings mentioned here is because they didn't exist at the time. There are many reasons why Jesus' siblings weren't mentioned.

Don't have time currently for the rest but will try to answer your objections later.

JimBrooks1776 said...

Spoofing you? I don't know how one could possibly spoof you Fawker.
Oh, now I get it, James Swan is using the persona of Guy Fawkes to spoof RC apologists! How very funny James. Now, please, pretty please, stop. Little bits of my brain are dying when I read your little parodies. I'll probably have to stop reading your blog before I'm unable to do my job anymore.

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

Longtime no chat...

I noticed this thread last night, and it brought back to mind some important information that has been left out; information—when coupled with certain conclusions from Mr. Svendsen's book—that proves the exact opposite of what you have argued for in your opening post.

See THIS THREAD the information...


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

David,
Thanks for your comments and challenge.

The focus of my article was limited to the New Testament - see the title and the passages listed. Based on the context and Matthew's intent, and the evidence from the other NT books, our position is still stronger.

The point still stands, based on the NT evidence and the context of the passage.

Svendsen admits that 7 occurances in the LXX can have the "until" (and continuing afterward).

The one example of extra-Biblical literature you found was not in Svenden, so I did not know about it.

(E. W. Brooks, Joseph and Asenath - the confession and prayer of Asenath, daughter of Pentephres the priest, 1918, pp. 34, 35.)

What year was that work written in ? You did not give a date for it.

How did you find that?

"And, when Joseph had left the house, Pentephres also and all his kindred departed to their inheritance, and Asenath was left alone with the seven virgins, listless and weeping till the sun set [καἰ κλαίουσα, ἕως οὗ ἔδυ ὁ ἥλιος] ; and she neither ate bread nor drank water, but while all slept she herself alone was awake and weeping and frequently beating her breast with her hand.

It seems to me that the "and" ( I would assume kai / και is here - it seems to me that when there is additional information, and an additional full sentence; then the addition information modifies the first part (weeping until the Sun goes down); but the additional information of "and" and "while everyone else slept, she kept weeping", shows that addition information is needed in order to qualify the first part. Matthew 1:25 does not have any additional information or a second sentence joined by an "and" / kai, as your example does.

If the Matthew 1:25 had been constructed like the example you gave, you would have a point - if Matthew 1:25 had something like this, "and continuing on after Jesus was born, Joseph continued to keep her as a virgin, as Mary had made a life long vow, and she is like a holy vessel and gate, that no one shall pass through, as it is written in the prophet Ezekiel 44:1-3." (something like that).

and she neither ate bread nor drank water, but while all slept she herself alone was awake and weeping and frequently beating her breast with her hand. This phrase provides additional information that specificially says she kept weeping after the sun down. But Matthew 1:25 does not go on to give us new information. Therefore, I don't think that is a good example to defeat our position.

I think Svendsen overtated his case that (obviously, I wish he had not written that; but oh well.)

...if this usage for this phrase can also be found in the literature contemporaneous to Matthew's gospel (i.e., the first century AD), then there can be little objection to seeing this same usage in the passage in question, and Mary's perpetual virginity becomes a strong exegetical option. (Ibid., p. 77.)

So, you found one example outside the NT; ok. But the second additional specific information is what tells us she continued weeping after sundown, not the heos hou phrase construction by itself.

Does that overthrow the vast majority of the meanings in favor against the PVM position, both in the NT and LXX? No

Svendsen notes that even heos/ 'εως by itself (without the particle hou/ 'ου) - almost half give the meaning of "until, but not afterward" and 75 % of heos an / εως αν give that meaning. (footnote # 76, page 291)

So, we are back to context as the final determiner of meaning as always. It seems that there are always exceptions to these Greek prepositional constructions, and yet the majority of them do mean, "until, but not afterward".

guy fawkes said...

Brooks and Zipper,
Please give the other guy who said I fail to engage a chance to engage before stealing his thunder.

JimBrooks1776 said...

BOW BEFORE MARY OR BE DOOMED TO HELL!!!
"Guy Fawkes"

guy fawkes said...

Brooksie,

Naw! You might not be damned to hell as you are probably just "invincibly ignorant" like the Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. You don't know any better so you can't help it.
I think you are just blinded by a diet of anti-Catholic bigotry.
And sure I don't want that little bit of brain you mention dying. Maybe you should try working sudoku puzzles. They say it helps keep the mind active.

JimBrooks1776 said...

BOW BEFORE MARY OR BE DOOMED TO HELL!!!
"Guy Fawkes"

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

Thanks much for taking the time to respond to my musings. In your response, you wrote:

== The focus of my article was limited to the New Testament - see the title and the passages listed. Based on the context and Matthew's intent, and the evidence from the other NT books, our position is still stronger.

The point still stands, based on the NT evidence and the context of the passage.==

Me: I agree with you that if one limits themselves to the NT alone, that the traditional Protestant position is much stronger than the Catholic/EO position. However, it is not a total 'slam-dunk', so I personally would avoid terms like "proves".

==Svendsen admits that 7 occurances in the LXX can have the "until" (and continuing afterward).

The one example of extra-Biblical literature you found was not in Svenden, so I did not know about it.

(E. W. Brooks, Joseph and Asenath - the confession and prayer of Asenath, daughter of Pentephres the priest, 1918, pp. 34, 35.)

What year was that work written in ? You did not give a date for it.==

Me: Hmmm...1918 is the published date. The following is a link to a free online PDF copy:

Joseph and Asenath - English translation

>>How did you find that?>>

Me: I have known about the passage from Joseph and Asenath for years now. I think (and this from my aging memory) that Gerry Matatics mentioned Joseph and Asenath on a radio program I listened to at least a decade ago. Since I have an extensive collection of apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings in my library, I was able to hunt down the exact passage.

==It seems to me that the "and" in the second sentence ( I would assume kai / και is here - it seems to me that when there is additional information, and an additional full sentence; then the addition information modifies the first part (weeping until the Sun goes down); but the additional information of "and" and "while everyone else slept, she kept weeping", shows that addition information is needed in order to qualify the first part. Matthew 1:25 does not have any additional information or a second sentence joined by an "and" / kai, as your example does.==

Me: But the argument presented by Mr. Svendsen is that the heōs hou construct is never accompanied by "the additional information", and hence, must always be understood in a temporal sense.


==I think Svendsen overtated his case that (obviously, I wish he had not written that; but oh well.)==

Me: But it was written, and it cannot be brushed aside as if it did not exist.

==...if this usage for this phrase can also be found in the literature contemporaneous to Matthew's gospel (i.e., the first century AD), then there can be little objection to seeing this same usage in the passage in question, and Mary's perpetual virginity becomes a strong exegetical option. (Ibid., p. 77.)

So, you found one example outside the NT; ok. But the second additional specific information is what tells us she continued weeping after sundown, not the heos hou phrase construction by itself.==

Me: I think you are missing Mr. Svendsen's argument, it is "the second additional specific information" which "tells us she continued weeping after sundown", and that is the specific usage that he said was non-existent.

==Does that overthrow the vast majority of the meanings in favor against the PVM position, both in the NT and LXX? No==

Me: You say no, but the expert on the subject says YES.


Grace and peace,

David


P.S. A PDF copy of the Greet text is available at the following link:

Studia Patristica - Greek text

Ken said...

What year was that work written in ? You did not give a date for it.==

Me: Hmmm...1918 is the published date. The following is a link to a free online PDF copy:

Joseph and Asenath - English translation

I don't mean what year the modern translation of it was published; I mean what year was the original written in? 100 BC or AD 120 or 150 AD or 90 AD or what? You don't provide THAT.

Ken said...

Does that overthrow the vast majority of the meanings in favor against the PVM position, both in the NT and LXX? No==

Me: You say no, but the expert on the subject says YES.

Who is that? I see no expert you quoted; only one example of a modern translation of a prayer that you didn't give the original date for. weak.

My point still stands.

Also, I showed the second half of the quote you gave gives additional information that shows that the "until" also continued. But without that second half of the quotation, the heos hou by itself would mean, "until, and not continuing after that".

David Waltz said...

Hello again Ken,

Earlier today you posted:

==I don't mean what year the modern translation of it was published; I mean what year was the original written in? 100 BC or AD 120 or 150 AD or 90 AD or what? You don't provide THAT.==
Me: In my opening post I wrote:

>>But, such an example does in fact exist in a Greek text that a number of scholars believe to be, "contemporaneous to Matthew's gospel". >>

That means a number of scholars (but not all) place the original document between 50-125 AD.

==Does that overthrow the vast majority of the meanings in favor against the PVM position, both in the NT and LXX? No

Me: You say no, but the expert on the subject says YES.

Who is that? I see no expert you quoted; only one example of a modern translation of a prayer that you didn't give the original date for. weak.

My point still stands.
==

Me: I was referring to Mr. Svendsen. Once again, the following is from my opening post:

>>As we have already noted in the previous chapter, an examination of the NT usage of the phrase, ἕως οὗ (ὅτου) has yielded little support for the understanding of this phrase in Matt. 1:25 as it relates to the perpetual virginity of Mary. This in itself does not thereby exclude the interpretation in question, for if evidence in support of this understanding can be found in the literature outside the NT, we may be able to preserve the meaning here as well. (Eric Svendsen, Who Is My Mother?, pp. 56.)>>

And:

>>...if this usage for this phrase can also be found in the literature contemporaneous to Matthew's gospel (i.e., the first century AD), then there can be little objection to seeing this same usage in the passage in question, and Mary's perpetual virginity becomes a strong exegetical option. (Ibid., p. 77.)>>

Me: So, "usage for this phrase" (in the continuation sense) has been "found in the literature contemporaneous to Matthew's gospel"; as such, "there can be little objection to seeing this same usage in the passage in question, and Mary's perpetual virginity becomes a strong exegetical option." That is Mr. Svendsen's take, and it is he that I called "the expert". You certainly have the right to disagree with him, but with all due respect, I would argue that his expertise in the field is greater than yours.

cont'd

David Waltz said...

cont'd

== The additional information qualifies the heos hou of the first sentence; but with it, it changes the meaning. Without it, it would communicate, "until, and after not continuing" - as in 15 of the 17 examples that Svenden gave of the NT, the other two of those 15 meaning "while". the additional info changes the whole issue.==

Me: You are missing the import of Mr. Svendsen's argument. It is his belief that because he had found no use of the heōs hou construct, circa the Apostolic period, which clearly forces one to interpret the said construct in a sense that allows continuation, then the Matt. 1:25 MUST be in interpreted in the cessation sense. However, he stated that if such an example could be found then, "there can be little objection to seeing this same usage in the passage in question, and Mary's perpetual virginity becomes a strong exegetical option."

Matt. 1:25 does not say after the heōs hou construct that Mary had sexual relations, but without the Joseph and Asenath passage, it can be argued (and has been argued) that the cessation understanding the ONLY legitimate way to understand the passage, for every other example must be read as such. But the Joseph and Asenath passage is a clear example that the heōs hou construct is COMBATABLE with the continuation sense.

You can still argue that one example does not overthrow all the others, but Mr. Svendsen, the expert, has certainly 'opened the door' for the continuation sense as being a valid one.

But, with that said, I personally believe that the cessation sense is the much stronger option for those who are not Catholic or EO.


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

David,
IMO, you did not seem to address the point I was making by the additional information in the example you gave; and the lack of it in Matthew 1:25. (see embolding part)

Matthew 1:25 does not have any additional information or a second sentence joined by an "and" / kai, as your example does.

If the Matthew 1:25 had been constructed like the example you gave, you would have a point - if Matthew 1:25 had something like this, "and continuing on after Jesus was born, Joseph continued to keep her as a virgin, as Mary had made a life long vow, and she is like a holy vessel and gate, that no one shall pass through, as it is written in the prophet Ezekiel 44:1-3." (something like that).

"and she neither ate bread nor drank water, but while all slept she herself alone was awake and weeping and frequently beating her breast with her hand."

This phrase provides additional information that specificially says she kept weeping after the sun down. But Matthew 1:25 does not go on to give us new information. Therefore, I don't think that is a good example to defeat our position.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

You said to David,

"IMO, you did not seem to address the point I was making...".

Well, Ken, IMO you have not addressed hardly any of the points I have put to you. Until you start answering some questions yourself, you have no right to demand answers from others.

For starters, tell me about the relationship between Jude and James of Alphaeus I keep asking you about.

Tell me why Jesus gave Mary to John if James was a believer ( along with Simon and Jude ).

When are you going to get around to explaining where the other kids were when Jesus was 12. Hadn't they been born yet?

When are you going to prove the brother were not adopted sons of Joseph?

While you are at it, show me where Jesus is ever called "a" son of Mary rather than "the" son of Mary.

As for James, Joses, Simon and Jude, in Matthew 13:55, they are recognized as brothers of Jesus by the same people who erroneously recognize Jesus to be the son of Joseph.
Doesn't that sort of take the wind out of your sails?

So far, about all you have hit on is this heos hu stuff and it has been debunked. But you keep harping on it.

Oh sure, you did say something about, " when the context demands it" in response to one of my questions. But we both know you were begging the question because I say the context does NOT demand it. You can't just assert something to prove it Ken.

You are all over the internet, from Dave Armstrongs, to Triabologue to Dave Waltz's and here with this. Who knows where else.

Mary is a Perpetual Virgin. You will never show otherwise. Give us all a break and concede defeat. You look as ridiculous as Saul's daughter.

Ken said...

For starters, tell me about the relationship between Jude and James of Alphaeus I keep asking you about.

Your argument there has a lot of assumptions, false connections, etc. even if I understand it; and is goofy and nutty and was not even worth spending time on.

Tell me why Jesus gave Mary to John if James was a believer ( along with Simon and Jude ).

Because at the time of the cross, they were not believers (see John 7:3-9). In fact, they thought Jesus was nutty, "out of His mind" (Mark 3:21).

The fact that James is singled out as "the Lord's brother" in Galatians 1:19, and called an apostle; and in 1 Corinthians 15:7 - as a separate resurrection appearance, gives us the apologetic answer to many skeptics who ask, "why didn't Jesus appear to any unbelievers or enemies?" He did - 1. James (and then James believed) and 2. Saul of Tarsus, (Acts 9, 22, 26) and then Saul believed, also known as Paul the apostle.

When are you going to get around to explaining where the other kids were when Jesus was 12. Hadn't they been born yet?

There were younger, but probably left behind in Nazareth with extended family babysitters while they took the trip to Jerusalem to focus on Jesus and His life. (As I mentioned before.)

When are you going to prove the brother were not adopted sons of Joseph?

I don't have to. the 'εως 'ου argument is so strong, as the ability to write cousins with ανεψιος and kinsman-kinswoman/relative with συγγενις defeats all your other attempts to overcome the weight of it.

While you are at it, show me where Jesus is ever called "a" son of Mary rather than "the" son of Mary.

Not really a great / strong point.

As for James, Joses, Simon and Jude, in Matthew 13:55, they are recognized as brothers of Jesus by the same people who erroneously recognize Jesus to be the son of Joseph.
Doesn't that sort of take the wind out of your sails?


No, not at all. It is very easy to see that Jospeh was known as Jesus' father in the sense of guardian and adopted by him, etc. without it inferring that Joseph had sex with Mary to produce Jesus. Luke 3:23 is clear, "being suppossedly as the son of Joseph". The virginal conception of Jesus is clear.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
For starters, tell me about the relationship between Jude and James of Alphaeus I keep asking you about.

"Your argument there has a lot of assumptions, false connections, etc. even if I understand it; and is goofy and nutty and was not even worth spending time on."

The feeling is mutual.


"Because at the time of the cross, they were not believers (see John 7:3-9). In fact, they thought Jesus was nutty, "out of His mind" (Mark 3:21)."

Leaving aside the issue of whether or not James, Simon and Jude,( all listed as believing Apostles ), were believers or not, you actually make an interesting point.
If Jn 19 was merely a case of providing for Mary's physical well being, what difference would it make if the brothers were believers or not?
Thank you for hi-liting the fact that Mary was given the role of SPIRITUAL maternity to all beloved disciples.

"The fact that James is singled out as "the Lord's brother" in Galatians 1:19, and called an apostle; and in 1 Corinthians 15:7 - as a separate resurrection appearance, gives us the apologetic answer to many skeptics who ask, "why didn't Jesus appear to any unbelievers or enemies?" He did - 1. James (and then James believed) and 2. Saul of Tarsus, (Acts 9, 22, 26) and then Saul believed, also known as Paul the apostle."

Ken, the only "believer" in the group of believers, including James and the other 12 Apostles, who believed Jesus would rise in 3 days was Mary. She is conspicuously absent from the scene where the women followers go to anoint the Body of Jesus.

When are you going to get around to explaining where the other kids were when Jesus was 12. Hadn't they been born yet?

"There were younger, but probably left behind in Nazareth with extended family babysitters while they took the trip to Jerusalem to focus on Jesus and His life. (As I mentioned before.)"

Prove it.



"I don't have to. the 'εως 'ου argument is so strong, as the ability to write cousins with ανεψιος and kinsman-kinswoman/relative with συγγενις defeats all your other attempts to overcome the weight of it."

I have already given you to quotes from Tobit showing you wrong. ( And I did it in a language you understand as well as I understand Greek).





As for James, Joses, Simon and Jude, in Matthew 13:55, they are recognized as brothers of Jesus by the same people who erroneously recognize Jesus to be the son of Joseph.
Doesn't that sort of take the wind out of your sails?

"No, not at all. It is very easy to see that Jospeh was known as Jesus' father in the sense of guardian and adopted by him, etc. without it inferring that Joseph had sex with Mary to produce Jesus. Luke 3:23 is clear, "being suppossedly as the son of Joseph". The virginal conception of Jesus is clear."

Ken, like my comment I posted on the other thread about Acts 1 proving Mary to have given birth to 105 of the "brothers" out of the 120 people present, my point was merely to show the problems you are causing by your refusal to qualify the "perspicuous" use of the word "brother" in the Bible.

Finally, please don't forget to tell us about the father/son, brother/brother relationship between Jude and James when you have a free moment from repeating your heos hu confusion on multiple blogs.

Adam Blauser said...

I am familiar with the argument from εως ου, and I think that one thing that must be brought up is the Sassurian distinction between diachrony and synchrony. Synchrony refers to the use of language at a particular time, and diachrony refers to the way in which language is used over time. The strength of the argument from εως ου is that it relies heavily upon synchronic language usage. For example, "meat" originally referred to food in general at the time of the King James Bible. Although "hound" is now used to refer to a hunting dog, in the Old English period it originally referred to a dog in general. "Wife" in the Old English period originally referred to a woman in general. In the Old English period, the verb "to starve" originally meant "to die." You see, language changes in its meaning, and that is why going back to the LXX is not helpful, because of the fact that language changes in its meaning. Hence, while diachrony is helpful, you have to combine that with synchronic analysis, and the importance of Svendsen's work is in documenting the contemporaneous usage of εως ου as indicating a termination of the action of the main clause. Hence, quotations from the LXX would be irrelevant.

However, I think something that clinches the argument even stronger is the concept of conversational implicature. This goes back to Paul Grice, who argued that meaning in language must take into account the fact that speakers and interlocutors cooperate with one another when they speak. This is what lead to what is famously known as the "cooperative principle," which states that speakers and interlocutors are to cooperate with one another in conversation. Grice then laid out four different examples of how speakers and interlocutors cooperate, and important one for our purposes is the Quantity principle [aka the Q-Principle]:

(i) Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange).

(ii) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required
. [cited in Huang, Yan. Pragmatics; Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics. Oxford University Press. New York, NY. 2007. p.25]

The Q-Principle allows for statements like this:

I started cleaning the kitchen.

To conversationally implicate:

I didn't finish cleaning the kitchen.

The reason is that, although finishing a task semantically entails starting that task, starting a task does not entail finishing the task. Hence, the use of the weaker "start" will conversationally implicate "did not finish."

One further important point, before returning to Matthew 1:25 is that conversational implicature such as the Q-implicature, is defeasable or cancelable by context, background assumptions, and metalinguistic negation. Consider the following:

I started cleaning the kitchen. Then, when I finished, I went to the store.

Here, very clearly, the idea that someone started cleaning the kitchen does not mean that they did not finish, as the context indicates that they *did* finish.

Now, back to Matthew 1:25. Temporal conjunctions like "until" divide the timeline up at a particular point-the point indicated by the subordinate clause. At this point, the timeline is divided up into two sections. The action of the main clause goes on up until that point. Following the Q-principle, this would mean that we are giving sufficient information, and hence, we can assume that the action of the main clause is terminated at the point on the timeline. Hence, words like "until" will elicit conversational implicatures that state that the action of the main clause stops at the point of the "until." Usually it helps to gloss a Q-implicature with the word "only:"

He did not know her *only* until she gave birth to a son.

Adam Blauser said...

However, such implicatures can be defeated by context and background assumptions. Someone has already given the example of Michal:

Michal had no children until the day of her death.

will not conversationally implicate:

Michal had no children *only* until the day of her death, but started afterwards.

However, this is because of our background assumptions about death, namely, that it is impossible to have children after you are dead. Thus, it will cancel the implicature that her inability to have children lasted only to the point of death and not after.

Another important thing to note is that words such as "until" ellicit what are called "generalized" conversational implicatures. That is, unless defeated by context or background assumptions, words like "until" seem to carry this conversational implicature. If you see a recipe that says:

Mix in the flour until you get a thick sauce.

You would not want the person to keep mixing in flour beyond that. You understand the author to mean that you are to mix in flour *only* until you get the desired thickness. Or, take someone who says:

I played chess until the ninth grade.

No one would argue that he means to say that he played chess beyond the ninth grade.

Because of the generalized nature of these conversational implicatures, the only way they will not apply is due to background assumptions and context. The context actually *strengthens* this interpretation because, in verse 18, "before they came together" presupposes that they came together. And all of this is in the context of the virgin birth, namely, that Mary was found to be with child, and Joseph knew he was not the father. Hence, really the only way out of this is to say that there is something in our background assumptions about reality. Some have tried to argue that the tradition of the church provides this basis, but the problem with this argument is that this tradition doesn't enter into orthodox thinking until the third or fourth centuries. Heretical groups such as the gnostics held to it, but that was due to their neo-Platonic views of reality which the Christian church was fighting actively against in the sexual realm. Also, you have Judaism which forbade celibate marriage, and the emerging Christian movement which forbade celibate marriage [1 Corinthians 7:1-5]. Hence, the background assumptions at this point are wholly against the interpreter who wants to say that this generalized conversational implicature is defeated by background assumptions, as the normal expectation of marriage of both Jewish and Christian circles was that marriage entailed sexual relations.

Adam Blauser said...

I think this also explains the semantic data that Svendsen uncovered. Εως ου appears to have, for a time, been the construction that was used during the time of Jesus and the Apostles for cases in which you absolutely meant to indicate that the action of the main clause was terminated by the action of the subordinate clause. However, due to the fact that there are many constructions in Greek which indicate until [including εως alone], there was no corresponding word to use for actions in which the action of the main clause *did* continue, and this unique usage of εως ου didn't stick, and thus, eventually came to be used in cases where the action of the main clause continued just like the rest of the construction came to be used just like all of the rest of the constructions in that regard.

In other words, both the semantics and the pragmatics of εως ου will not allow for this interpretation. The way in which the semantics and pragmatics have worked together in history seems to slam the door on the relevance of other passages where such conversational implicatures are defeated. Grice's work on conversational implicature shows that sometimes looking at individual words and phrases is not enough. Human beings use words, and they intend things with their words. Putting this along side of word meaning is a powerful way to make language a *human* phenomenon, and not the study of mere chemicals or physical objects.

guy fawkes said...

Adam,

Who are you addressing? I hope it isn't me as I don't read Greek. You are wasting your erudition on me.
If you want to continue talking over my head after having been told I don't read Greek so, EA and I just might conversing in Portuguese again.

As I already told Ken, I will go with Chrysostom's Greek rather than yours. He addressed both the "brothers' business and the "until" issue. Being a major Greek Father, speaking Greek every day of his life, he probably had a better handle on the language than you or Mr. Svensen.

zipper778 said...

Yeah, with guy's mentallity, he criticizes Ken for not bringing up evidence, then when Ken does bring evidence, guy's response is, that's not fair, how do you like reading a language that you don't understand. And then guy's evidence is that he claims that the church fathers agree with him.

Real convincing guy.

Adam Blauser said...

guy fawkes,

Goes back to the issue of diachrony and synchrony. Chrysostom lived three hundred years after the writing of the NT. Languages can change in huge ways in 300 years. More than that, Grice didn't write his paper until the twentieth century. Why would you expect Chrysostom to address issues in Grice relevant to Matthew 1:25 if Grice hadn't written yet?

guy fawkes said...

Adam,

" Chrysostom lived three hundred years after the writing of the NT. Languages can change in huge ways in 300 years".

Indeed. And language can change even more in 2000 year, wouldn't you agree?
Still, I would bet my understanding of Shakespeare to be better than a person who learns English as a second language.

The point you Protestants miss is this; The Catholic Church has been consistently teaching the PVM since the beginning. She has also been interpreting the Greek for as long. She did not decide to go back and start reading Greek last week to learn what the passages dealing with Heos Hu and Adelphe mean or if May was really a Virgin.

You, Ken and Sven all call into question the Reformers' ability to understand the Bible, which is a good thing. This Mary business is only a rather recent development, even among you guys. Because you spurn Tradition, each and every one of you has to reinvent the wheel and learn Greek and go back to the earliest manuscripts you can find and do your very best to understand what it all means. You really shouldn't even be trusting what the ministers and teachers in your denominations tell you what the text means because, even if they are smart, they can err.

guy fawkes said...

Zipper,

" with guy's mentallity"

What does my *mentality* have to do with Mary's Perpetual Virginity?

( Psssst, Zippo, I can at least spell it correctly. Remember those old cartoons where the coyote or wolf has a contraption rigged up with a boot hanging from a a tree limb to kick himself in the behind after letting the rabbit, roadrunner or mouse get away? Is that you you feel now? Ha! Gotcha' this time, eh, Zippy? Next time, use spell check before posting. )

guy fawkes said...

Adam,

"implicature."

I told you I don't read Greek.

I think you asked, either on this thread or the other one dealing with Mary, why Jesus would use the word brother if He meant cousin when He said, " He who does the ill of my father is my brother....".

Of course the word brother can mean an actual brother. Who denied it?

Anyway, didn't Jesus really mean to say he who does the will of God is brought into a close, intimate and even familial relationship with Himself?

zipper778 said...

Guy said:


"( Psssst, Zippo, I can at least spell it correctly. Remember those old cartoons where the coyote or wolf has a contraption rigged up with a boot hanging from a a tree limb to kick himself in the behind after letting the rabbit, roadrunner or mouse get away? Is that you you feel now? Ha! Gotcha' this time, eh, Zippy? Next time, use spell check before posting. )"

Yeah you got me guy. Nobody has ever seen you make a typo before.

Again, real mature guy.

guy fawkes said...

Zippo,

Actually, if you read the very next comment I posted, I made a typo. I wrote "ill" instead of "will".

I was merely reacting to you ad hominem nonsense about my 'mentality". ( And you call me "immature").

Don't insult me and I won't insult you right back, okay?

By the way, check out James Swan's new article on Luther and the canon in which Luther said this,

""This epistle is ascribed to the holy apostle St. Jude, the brother of the two apostles James the Less and Simon, the sons of the sister of the mother of Christ who is called Mary the wife of James or Cleophas"

Funny how you harness your wagon to Luther on JBFA but not on this.

zipper778 said...

Guy said:

"Don't insult me and I won't insult you right back, okay?"

So you're admitting that you're into getting revenge. Interesting. Also note that you start your statement off by calling me "Zippo". Most people would consider that an insult from the start. You came here insulted from the start because this isn't a pro-Rome blog. I guess that means that you are justified in insulting anyone that disagrees with your religion.

My advice to you would be to turn the other cheek.

Also, I'm supposed to believe that everything Luther ever wrote was perfect? You've admitted in James' new thread about Luther that you have disagreements with Jerome and Cardinal Cajetan about the canon. It does not bother me that I don't agree 100% with every Christian throughout history. If anyone claims that they do, then they're a liar.

If you can't live by the same standard that you're holding me to, then your argument is invalid.

guy fawkes said...

Zipper,

You consider being called 'Zippo" and insult? HA! Don't try to buffalo me!
Zipper is a nutty name. If you can't stand being kidded, change it.

By the way, what is this nonsense,

"If you can't live by the same standard that you're holding me to, then your argument is invalid."

If I am a thief, and you are a thief, and I accuse you of being one, my hypocrisy does not absolve you of being a thief. You are a thief whether I am or not.

This will be the last time I address you, Brooks, or EA on the subject of me. My interest is in Catholic/Protestant apologetics. You guys spend to much time trying to force a food fight. Not interested as this blog has a double standard. Mr. Swan will accuse me of being "toxic" and give you three %2*&!&^# a free pass.

guy fawkes said...

Z,

Neither Cajetan nor Jerome were Pope.
I don't believe a word either Jerome or Cajetan ever said, not on their own authority anyway, if it goes against the Church's teaching.

I believe ONLY what the Church approves. I do so on the authority of Christ who established that Church and promised He would never allow her to err.

On whose authority do you swallow anything Luther, Calvin, John Piper, MacArthur, your minister, said or says?
The Bible's? Luther said that too, but you two don't agree on some important issues, do you?

Please don't tell me the Bible is your authority. All squabbling Protestant denominations and even individuals make that empty claim.

Do you have an infallible authority?

Adam Blauser said...

Guy,

The point you Protestants miss is this; The Catholic Church has been consistently teaching the PVM since the beginning. She has also been interpreting the Greek for as long. She did not decide to go back and start reading Greek last week to learn what the passages dealing with Heos Hu and Adelphe mean or if May was really a Virgin.

Prove it. Show this belief in orthodox Christian writings before the third century. The only people you can cite are the Gnostics who, as I said, believed in it for a totally different reason [their neo-platonic dualism]. There is no evidence that *anyone* in the early church believed this, and, in all likelihood, when it did come into the church, it came in from the Gnostic writings.

Adam Blauser said...

First of all, with regards to the second half of your post about the reformers and Biblical interpretation, to expect Luther and Calvin to have dealt with Paul Grice is absurd, since Grice wrote in the 20th century, and they wrote in the 16th century. Also, isn't it rather ironic that one thing all of us agree on is the central elements of the gospel. They may have believed that Mary remained a virgin, but they did not make it an element of the gospel, and, in fact, criticized the "Papists" for doing so. We all believe in Sola Fide, and we would all be telling you the same thing in regards to your denial of the gospel. Isn't it amazing how, on the central issues, Lutheran, Calvinist, and Arminian Protestantism tell Roman Catholicism pretty much the same thing?

More than that, the problem with this argument is that it basically says that there is only one factor involved in interpretation: the interpreter. However, that is profoundly *not* the case. You also have the author, who has left an artifact of his thinking in the text. More than that, you have God himself, in whose image the author and us are created, and in whom both the author and us live and move and have our being, and who communicates perfectly. Therefore, we know what perfect communication looks like, because of our covenant relationship with him. It is this standard of covenant relationship with God that gives us a standard outside of ourselves in which to judge whether interpretations are correct. We have used those standards to show that Luther, Calvin, and Chrysostom were wrong. We stand upon God himself, and not upon a limited and finite church.

This also means that pastors can err, and yet, there is a standard by which they can be corrected in God himself. It also means, because we know this perfect communication because we live, move, and have our being in God, that we can know when the correct interpretation is reached. The fact that you cannot engage the text on those terms, and have to put, in God's place, a mere limited and finite church is the demonstration of the fundamental idolatry of Roman Catholicism: the idolatry of the church. *God* and *God alone* is the foundation of proper interpretation of scripture, and whenever the limited and finite church is put his place, it will always be idolatry.

More than that, why should I accept the Roman Catholic interpretations of scripture? The Eastern Orthodox disagree with you on the Papacy and the Immaculate Conception, and hold to doctrines such as Theosis, which you reject. Why should I not accept *their* church's infallible interpretations of scripture, and instead accept *your* church's infallible interpretation of scripture? The non-Chalcedonian churches also claim this infallible authority, and they say that you are wrong to affirm Chalcedon. Why should I accept the authority of Rome and not their authority? Good grief, the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses claim the same kind of infallible authority to interpret. Again, why should I accept Rome's authority, and not theirs? Going to church history won't help either, as the church fathers must be interpreted, and you must accept whatever "infallible" interpretation of the *fathers* these groups give you. They all claim to be the one true church Christ founded, and they do so from an infallible interpretation of Church tradition just like Rome has.

The problem is that all of these churches are limited and finite. They are not universal, and all of them can err, and thus, they can never be the foundation of proper interpretation of the scriptures, because there is no way to know which church is right in their understanding of both Church tradition and scripture without engaging in the same kind of fallible interpretation you decry protestants for. Better instead to stand upon God as one created in his image, and who relates to him day by day in covenant. God is eternal; the church is not.

Adam Blauser said...

Guy, also, since when is "implicature" Greek? Conversational implicature is something that a philosopher of language by the name of Paul Grice discovered in the twentieth century. Look up Paul Grice and Conversational Implicature, and you will see examples from all languages, as conversational implicature is detachable.

Also, you missed the point about the brothers of Jesus. Go back and read the verse again:

Matthew 12:47-50 Someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You." 48 But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" 49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! 50 "For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."

Notice, Jesus says this in response to the claim that his mother and brothers are standing outside waiting for him. Jesus clearly says that, whatever the physical relationship is between these brothers and him, it is the same with those who do the will of his Father. Again, unless you are going to argue that those who do the will of God are Jesus' spiritual cousins, the biological nature of these brothers is established.

guy fawkes said...

Adam,

I am not trying to be evasive or difficult but I think it is you who is missing the point.

Please, when did I say brother cannot mean brother but must mean cousin?
As for Jesus use of "who is my brother, don't you think he means intimate and close relative?

If you actually mean brother, that is fine with me. Brothers have a common Father and Mother.

guy fawkes said...

Adam,

"Prove it. Show this belief in orthodox Christian writings before the third century."

Ha! The onus is on you to prove the contrary.
If this teaching was an innovation, where was the outcry from the faithful when it was foisted on them by the "Romish whore"?

Think for minute. Christians were still being lion food until the first quarter of the 4th century because they adamantly refused to burn a pinch of incense to Caesar's idol or meld the Faith with paganism in anyway.
You say that in the 3rd century, while still being martyred, they adopted non Christian views about Mary.
By the way, I am curious, which goddess conceived and gave birth as a Virgin and remained so? I am familiar with the charges made by Celsus but they don't fit here.
Never, in the early Church or since has Mary ever been called the New Isis or the New Athena. Rather, the Christians drew on Judaism and called her the New Eve.
I think you have been reading to much Hislop ( and I mean slop ) or Jack Chick.

I don't know how you feel about the Odes of Solomon and the Ascension of Isaiah, both 1st century, but the
The Gospel of James is not a Gnostic document.

You know Adam, over on Tim Kauffman's anti-Catholic blog, his whole position is based on the theory that all of "Mariolotry and "bread idolatry" and the Papacy sprang up in the latter half of the 4th century.
You guys really need to coordinate your dating of the apostasy.

guy fawkes said...

Adam,

"The Eastern Orthodox disagree with you on the Papacy and the Immaculate Conception, and hold to doctrines such as Theosis,"

Funny, but some of the strongest defenders of the Papacy were the Greek Fathers.

Actually, the Orthodox didn't really start opposing the Immaculate Conception until we defined it.

You see Adam, all of the Marian prerogatives are bound up with "Semper Virgo', which the Greeks do certainly believe in. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is implied in Semper Virgo.

If Mary had natural children other than Jesus, she would not be the Woman of gen 3:15. She would have born them in pain and she would have been under the dominion of a man, both punishments for Eve's cooperation with the Serpent.

By the way, we celebrate the Immaculate Conception on Dec 8.
Do you know what the Greeks celebrate on the 9th?
They celebrate St. Anne's Conception of Mary. Hmmmmmmmm? They formally deny the doctrine but unofficially sure seem to uphold it.

As for Theosis, we do believe in becoming divinized by sanctifying grace. Our differences are not as great as you think.

Besides, the Greeks are just plane wrong. They deny the Filioque, which I hope you affirm.
They permit divorce and remarriage. And some bishoprics allow contraception. They have some major problems that will never be resolved.
Their Bishops cannot even meet in an ecumenical council because they have no Pope ( nor emperor or Czar ) to call for it.


EA said...

"The onus is on you to prove the contrary."

The burden of proof typically resides with the person making the affirmative claim. For example, if someone claims that God exists, the onus is on that person to provide evidence to support that contention. The onus is not on the atheist is this example to prove that God does not exist.

So, if the contention is that the belief of the PVM has existed in the church since the Apostles, then the onus is on the person making that claim. The onus is not on the person denying that contention to prove that the belief did not always exist.

Adam Blauser said...

Guy,

Funny, but some of the strongest defenders of the Papacy were the Greek Fathers.

Actually, the Orthodox didn't really start opposing the Immaculate Conception until we defined it
.

Funny, they have a totally different interpretation of the Greek fathers. Why should I accept your interpretation of the Greek Fathers, and not their interpretation?

Also, you are confusing the immaculate conception with the idea that Mary committed no personal sin. The EO believe that Mary committed no personal sin, but that she did inherit the stain of original sin.

More than that, all of these are mere interpretations of church tradition by a mere fallible man. And if you go back to Rome as the infallible church, Eastern Orthodoxy says that *they* are that infallible church. Hence, you haven't answered the question. Why should I accept *your* interpretation of church tradition, when the EO have their interpretation? How do I find out which one to follow, when that would require me to engage in private interpretation-the very thing you don't like us doing?

Adam Blauser said...

"You see Adam, all of the Marian prerogatives are bound up with "Semper Virgo', which the Greeks do certainly believe in. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is implied in Semper Virgo."

Nonsense. There is no logical relationship between the idea that Mary was an ever virgin, and that she didn't inherit the stain of original sin. There are many people who never get married and never have sexual relations, and yet, have inherited the stain of original sin. Using this logic, we would have to say that their perpetual virginity is something that implies that they never inherited the stain of original sin.

Adam Blauser said...

"If Mary had natural children other than Jesus, she would not be the Woman of gen 3:15. She would have born them in pain and she would have been under the dominion of a man, both punishments for Eve's cooperation with the Serpent."

Again, why not? The text says that *her seed* would crush the head of the serpent. Jesus most assuredly did that, and it is irrelevant to whether Mary needed that redemption.

Adam Blauser said...

As for Theosis, we do believe in becoming divinized by sanctifying grace. Our differences are not as great as you think.

Do you believe in a distinction between God and his energies, and that we become part of the energies of God? Even Protestants hold that we are united to Christ. That isn't the issue. The EO have a particular conception of "partaking of the divine nature" that is unique to EO.

Adam Blauser said...

By the way, we celebrate the Immaculate Conception on Dec 8.
Do you know what the Greeks celebrate on the 9th?
They celebrate St. Anne's Conception of Mary. Hmmmmmmmm? They formally deny the doctrine but unofficially sure seem to uphold it
.

So, the celebration of a saint means that saint's child is immaculately conceived?

Besides, the Greeks are just plane wrong. They deny the Filioque, which I hope you affirm.
They permit divorce and remarriage. And some bishoprics allow contraception. They have some major problems that will never be resolved.
Their Bishops cannot even meet in an ecumenical council because they have no Pope ( nor emperor or Czar ) to call for it
.

I do accept the filioque, but that misses the point. Why *should* I accept the filioque? Again, if you say that I should accept it because of the the authority of Rome, then why should I accept the authority of Rome and not the authority of Constantinople? They make the very same claims to authority that you do, and you have to engage in private interpretation to decide between them-the very thing you decry us from doing, because we can never know which interpretation of scripture is right. As for all of the other things, I could just simply give the same response. They believe it, and they are the infallible church, so I must believe them. You say, "No, Rome is that one true church." And I say, "Prove it, without using your own private interpretation." It can't be done. Again, you base interpretation on the church, and the church will not be big enough, because the church is limited and finite.

Adam Blauser said...

Ha! The onus is on you to prove the contrary.
If this teaching was an innovation, where was the outcry from the faithful when it was foisted on them by the "Romish whore"?


Nonsense. The reason there was no outcry is because it was something that developed slowly over time. And I said it came from Gnosticism initially, and, over time, worked its way into orthodox Christian thinking.

Also, you are the one who bears the burden of proof, because you are making the positive assertion that this existed in the days of the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers. I simply say that there is no evidence for that whatsoever. Not one church writer even begins to allude to the PV in that time period. And yet, the first time we see it is in Gnostic writings, consistent with their worldview, and then we only see it in orthodox writings much later??????? Seems to indicate that this came in from Gnosticism-not that it was the universal belief of the church from day one.

Adam Blauser said...

I am not trying to be evasive or difficult but I think it is you who is missing the point.

Please, when did I say brother cannot mean brother but must mean cousin?
As for Jesus use of "who is my brother, don't you think he means intimate and close relative?

If you actually mean brother, that is fine with me. Brothers have a common Father and Mother
.

Okay, question. Does the word "brother" in Matthew 12:46-48 have the same meaning [only spiritualized] as in verses 49-50? If not, on what basis? You see, if you take "brother" to mean "cousin" in verses 46-48, then you are forced to take it to mean "cousin" in verses 49-50, because, other than a spiritualizing of the term, there is no change in context. If you disagree, then why would you take a different meaning [again, sans the spiritualizing of the text] in verses 46-48 than what you would take in verses 49-50?

The point is, if these are Jesus specifically relates the statement that these are his "brothers" outside to speak with him to the idea that those who do the will of his father are his "brothers." If the first biological instance means "cousins," then why not take the second instance to mean "cousins?" If the second instance means "brother," then why not take the first instance to mean "brother?"

zipper778 said...

Adam, I applaud your effort, but guy isn't looking for answers or even intelligent debate. He only wishes to stand on his soap box.

EA said...

Sola Ecclesia

Cletus Van Damme said...

Adam,

"They make the very same claims to authority that you do, and you have to engage in private interpretation to decide between them-the very thing you decry us from doing, because we can never know which interpretation of scripture is right."

The difference lies in the nature of what is being submitted to, and consequently, what changes after such submission. EO, JW, Mormons, Rome, David Koresh, crazy Bill under the bridge all make claims to divine authority/infallibility - that's true, and one must choose to submit. But that is not the "very thing you decry [Protestants] from doing" - if it was the "very thing", then Protestantism would not reject claims of infallibility/divine authority - they would be making those claims themselves. Christ and the Apostles made claims to authority. So did false messiahs/leaders. People had to choose. That didn't mean their claims were just the same as some random guy not making such claims in interpreting the OT or that such claims by Christ/Apostles were superfluous and not meaningful.


"Do you believe in a distinction between God and his energies, and that we become part of the energies of God?"

That's why guy said there were differences, not that there weren't differences. RCs hold to the "created grace" distinction in the RC view of theosis which is analogous to the essence/energies distinction in order to maintain creator/creature distinction. Neither of them make the distinction between justification and sanctification Protestants claim is the heart of the gospel.

"Even Protestants hold that we are united to Christ. That isn't the issue."

That is definitely the issue. If you are truly ontologically united to Christ in the way EO/RCs view it, there is no need for ongoing extra nos imputation, nor would it be needed at judgment a la Michael Horton's cartoon - http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_0AOsJWKXHBM/SLm1ArDxciI/AAAAAAAAAkY/PvyBiH5TjSg/s1600-h/SimulIustusEtPeccator.jpg

"The EO have a particular conception of "partaking of the divine nature" that is unique to EO."

guy's point was that both EO and RC hold we become divinized and that justifies. There is no sense or need of extra nos imputed righteousness in either system of theology.

guy fawkes said...

Adam,

This is at least the third time I have addressed this.

"The point is, if these are Jesus specifically relates the statement that these are his "brothers" outside to speak with him to the idea that those who do the will of his father are his "brothers." If the first biological instance means "cousins," then why not take the second instance to mean "cousins?"

Jude calls himself the brother of James. Is a brother?
Elsewhere, he is the son of James.
Must brother mean uterine brother everytime? Must it always mean any male relative other than a uterine brother?

guy fawkes said...

Adam,

You asked for sources before the 3rd century for Semper Virgo.

Although we don't have the documents today, Jerome and Eusebius said Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Polycarp attested to Mary's Perpetual Virginity.

We have no record denying it.

In the 3rd century, Tertullian said Mary had other children. However, when he made the statement he was not discussing Mary. Instead, he was trying to express how normal Christ's humanity was. He also said Jesus was physically ugly.
And when Tertullian did make his statement on Mary having other children, he did not appeal to the "brothers" or Heos Hu passages you guys do.

You should know, Christians did not borrow from the gnostics. They borrowed from us.

guy fawkes said...

Adam,

Are the teachings of Gregory of Palamas de Fide for all Eastern Orthodox?

I am not aware of any dialogue between Rome and the East where the definition of justification/thesis/partaking of the divine nature was addressed as a major stumbling block to reunification.

Ever hear of Frankie Shaeffer?
Many years ago he was a guest on a Protestant radio show in which he was making claims about how close Protestantism was to Orthodoxy verses Rome on the very issues you bring up. I was driving my car, pulled over, hurried to a phone booth and phoned the show and undid his entire misrepresentation of Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
Google James Likoudis if you are really interested in this stuff.

guy fawkes said...

Adam,

"So, the celebration of a saint means that saint's child is immaculately conceived?"

You must not have read what I said. The feast is not called, "the feast of St. Ann". It's called the "feast of St. Ann's Conception".

CONCEPTION of who? MARY.

guy fawkes said...

Adam,

Read my lips.

I don't believe in the Immaculate Conception because Mary said she was in her apparitions at Lourdes ( although she did ).

I don't believe in the Immaculate Conception because the Fathers taught it, at least implicitly ( although they did ).

I don't believe in the Immaculate Conception because it makes sense to me ( although it does ).

I believe in the Immaculate Conception because Matthew 28:20 and Matthew 16 teach it.

Now, my mind is not "absolutely" infallible and neither is my interpretation of the inspired. inerrant and infallible scripture, including the passages in Matthew I refer to above.

But I can think using syllogisms, as can you and every other human being who has reached the age of reason.

So long as the major and minor premises are correct, the conclusions of my syllogisms are too. As a matter of fact, they are "practically" infallible. (2+2=4 is an infallible statement and we can all do it ).

Leaving aside ( for the moment ) the issue of divine inspiration and approaching the New Testament as an accurate account of historic facts, along with the writings of pagans, Jews, Church fathers, and even heretics, I can, using syllogisms, conclude Christ established a Church and empowered it to continue His mission down through the ages. I can see that that Church is the Catholic Church.

Once I come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded, I am now compelled ( yet freely ) to make an act of Faith and accept everything that Church teaches as she speaks for Christ.

That is why I believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

That explains my position.
Now.what about yours?

I keep asking you guys but nobody answers, why do you accept the Book of Esther as being inspired? In your version, God is not mentioned even once. It is never quoted in the NT. Luther didn't like it. None of the characters are especially holy or even moral. Its name comes from the name of a goddess, Ishtar and I believe most scholars would say the events are historically dubious. If you have ever actually read it yourself, did the Holy Spirit testify to your spirit that it was inspired? I doubt it!
Did you read it in the original Hebrew? Did you have the actual document or a man made copy?
Depending on who you ask, there were between 7 and 25 different Jewish sects or denominations. Did they all hold this book to be canonical?

Why does Adam Blauser hold Esther to be canonical?

EA said...

"Why does Adam Blauser hold Esther to be canonical? "

Back to the canon, again.

Ken said...

Guy Fawkes / Jim:
you wrote:
Google James Likoudis if you are really interested in this stuff.

Are you James Likoudis ?

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
No, but I have spoken to him over the phone, and read his material.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

I knew a Greek woman named Mary once ( besides my own mother who was raised as a Catholic although baptized in that Church ).

She explained that it is not customary to name girls after the Virgin Mary in that Church as she is too holy. Instead they name girls "Mary" after Mary Magdalene.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

We are finished talking about the perpetual Virginity of the Mother of God are we?

I don't mean to single Rhology out for his ill thought out comments ( either here or on the other Mary thread ) a few days ago when he said that at the Annunciation God implanted an embryo or fetus in Mary's womb. It's just that he is an example of how Protestants don't really invest any effort into mining the Marian passages for the treasure they hold.

Think about what took place at the Annunciation/Incarnation. Both God and a creature participated, nay, cooperated, in God becoming one of us. I know that is hard for a Calvinist to swallow what with their view of man's depravity.

Ponder this, the Son proceeds from the Father, you agree, right?
Then you must agree the Son proceeded from the Father in Mary's body for nine months our time but from eternity His "time".
It's beyond our capacity to fathom, huh?

Or what about this; Jesus is the one Son of God. He is the one son of Mary. God the Father's Paternity and Mary's maternity have there term in the same Jesus. Think about that for a while before commenting.
Do you think a woman so graced would need to have more children to be fulfilled.

How about this one; We are called to love God and love neighbor. We love God by loving our neighbor. We actually take our mind of of God when loving our neighbor for a while as we can focus on only one thing at a time. A mother cannot spend all her time in prayer or reading the Bible. She must love God indirectly by nursing, washing and changing the diapers of her baby.
Mary is the only woman to ever serve God directly by nursing, washing and changing her baby.
Mary changed the diapers of God!

I wish I could recall the name of the Greek Father who said that Gabriel was like a matchmaker who carried a marriage proposal from God to a Virgin and awaited her consent. You see, Mary was not asked to become the mother of a new person but of One who already existed and who had a purpose in coming.

Imagine for a moment a normal mother who is pregnant with a child she hopes will be a great musician some day. Let's say she even get's pregnant with that intention in mind. After the baby is born, she encourages the child as he grows up and makes great sacrifices in order to pay for lessons and get him a good teacher.
Lt's carry it further and say she herself is a musician and she teaches him herself. Let's say that the woman and her child later perform duos together in concerts.
Would you say she cooperated in his later achievement as a great musician? ( This is my own sister in law, by the way ).

Well, this is NOT what I am saying about Mary!
I am saying something far more radical.

Let's say a great musician already pre-exists in some other dimension but in order to come into our world needs a body in order to play the music he has longed to play from all eternity.
Now, imagine he chooses a woman to be the mother who will cooperate willingly in making those sacrifices that go with being the mother of child destined to be a great musician. Imagine that woman knowing through prophecies that such a person's coming has been predicted and that she is aware of what will be required of her, at least to some degree. Imagine she has longed for his coming.

This woman consents to something far more profound than the previous woman, wouldn't you say?

You guys have got to start thinking about the words you read in Bible. They are packed with dynamite.

Michael Taylor said...

Ken, James, et alia...

About this Guy Fawkes fellow. Don't waste your valuable time.

I have made the personal decision not to interact with him based on a lot of interaction in other fora. If Blogger can block someone, he'd be a good candidate.

Consider his moniker. "Guy Fawkes" was a Roman Catholic terrorist notable not only for trying to blow up Protestants with gunpowder, but more specifically for taking up arms against the Dutch Reformed.

He's not here to debate. He's here to annoy. Be advised.

EA said...

"He's not here to debate. He's here to annoy."

WHAT?!?!