RE: Ask a Catholic
May 30, 2015 at 2:11 pm
(This post was last modified: May 30, 2015 at 3:04 pm by Randy Carson.)
MODS: In this series of questions, I've been asked to explain and defend some very specific points of Catholic doctrine by a former Catholic. I would respectfully ask for a little latitude in answering his these short questions with longer, more robust answers that are necessary to do his questions justice. Thanks.
After he almost died in an automobile accident, my grandfather never took another drink of alcohol until the day he died.
Does the cessation of his life imply that he began drinking after he was dead? Read on...
There are actually TWO issues in Matthew 1:25 that need to be addressed: "until" and "firstborn", so my answer will cover both.
The Catholic Church teaches that Mary remained a perpetual virgin and that Jesus did not have any brothers and sisters. Many non-Catholics doubt these claims, and they frequently cite Matthew 1:25 in support of their views that Mary and Joseph had normal sexual relations after they were married and that Jesus was only the first of many children that resulted from their union. Let’s examine this important verse more closely using two popular Protestant translations.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (KJV)
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. (NIV)
“Until”
In verse 25, the Greek heôs, “until,” does not necessarily contrast “before” to “after.” It means that up to a certain moment, something happened or not, without considering what happened after that moment. For example, the Greek text of the Septuagint says, in 2 Samuel 6:23, that “Mikal, daughter of Saul, had no children until (heôs) the days of her death.” This obviously does not suggest that she had children after her death. Matthew is interested in underlining that Jesus’ birth and conception were carried out without the intervention of any man.
Remove the word "until" from the verse, and you have the following:
"Joseph had no relations with her...she brought forth her firstborn"
Two simple statements. Protestants really disagree with the first of these two; therefore, the word "until" is the whole argument. Either Joseph held off "until" and then proceeded to have relations (the Protestant position) OR Joseph had no relations with her. Period. (the Catholic position).
Naturally, Protestants argue for a simple reading of the text, but Catholics counter that "until" doesn't actually imply the cessation of past action (namely, holding off). Although things look intuitively obvious for the Protestant point of view, in actual fact, the Catholic position is not harmed at all by the word "until" because that word implies nothing...and other verses in scripture PROVE that point.
Genesis 8:7
The raven "did not return TILL the waters were dried up..."
Did the raven ever return?
Deuteronomy 34:6 (Knox)
No one knew the location of his grave "until this present day"
But we know that no one has known it since that day either.
Luke 1:80
"And the child grew and became strong in spirit; and he lived in the desert until he appeared publicly to Israel."
The Greek word translated "until" in this passage is heos, the same word used in Matthew 1:25. The child spoken of is John the Baptist who also lived in the desert after he appeared in public (cf. Matt. 3:1, Mark 1:3,4; Luke 3:2).
1 Timothy 6:14
"....that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless UNTIL our Lord Jesus Christ's appearing..."
May this commandment be disobeyed after Jesus returns?
Because “until” does not require a cessation of activity, Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to disprove the perpetual virginity of Mary.
“Firstborn”
Many non-Catholics assume that Mary had a second child because Jesus is referred to as her “firstborn son”. However, “firstborn” is merely a term applied to the first child that "opened the womb". The term does not imply a "secondborn". In ancient times, a woman who only had one child during the course of her lifetime still called that child the "firstborn". Scripture also supports this understanding:
Numbers 3:40
And the LORD said unto Moses, Number all the firstborn of the males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward, and take the number of their names.
Note here that a child as young as one month old was called the "firstborn". Given the length of the human gestation period, it is not possible for a month old "firstborn" infant to have a younger sibling. Thus, we see clearly that "firstborn" was a technical term that did not prove that additional children had been born.
The Church isn't contradicting what the Bible teaches; the problem is in understanding what Jesus was saying. If we followed the "Call No Man Father" prohibition literally, then no human on earth would have that title, and we would have lost the feel for the meaning of fatherhood since the word would have been expunged from our vocabulary and our conscience.
Think not? Consider how the trappings of European royalty have no meaning for Americans, and I think you'll get some sense of how this happens.
Now, if we had no understanding of what it means to have or to be a human father, the "Fatherhood' of God as revealed to us by Him would be completely sterile.
But since you have some familiarity with scripture, let's look first at the verse you are referring to and then at additional verses which are relevant.
Matthew 23:8-10
8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' (Gr. rabbi) for you have only one Master (Gr. didaskalos, kathegetes) and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' (Gr. patera) for you have one Father (Gr. pater), and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' (Gr. kathegetai) for you have one Teacher (Gr. kathegetes), the Christ.” (NIV)
Matthew 23:8-10
8”But be not ye called Rabbi (Gr. rabbi): for one is your Master (Gr. didaskalos, kathegetes), even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no man your father (Gr. patera) upon the earth: for one is your Father (Gr. pater), which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters (Gr. kathegetai) : for one is your Master (Gr. kathegetes), even Christ.” (KJV)
Based on the preceding passage, many non-Catholics claim that the Catholic Church violates the scriptural prohibition against calling anyone “father” since its priests are commonly called “father” and the pope is referred to as the “Holy Father.” Is this really what the Bible teaches? Let’s take a closer look at other verses to see whether this is really what the Bible tells us.
Jesus Violates This Command
Luke 16:24
24So he called to him, “Father (Gr. pater) Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.”
Jesus tells a parable in which He has one of the characters speak to “Father Abraham” which would obviously be a bad example for His audience. Does Jesus contradict Himself?
Paul Violates This Command
Romans 4:1-18
1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?
In this passage, Paul refers to Abraham as a spiritual father eight times. This is a terrible precedent to establish if Jesus has prohibited us from using the term “father.”
1 Corinthians 4:14-15
14I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. 15Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers (Gr. pateras), for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.
In this passage, Paul refers to himself as the spiritual father of the Corinthians. This is a terrible precedent to establish if Jesus has prohibited us from using the term “father.”
Ephesians 4:11-13
11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers (Gr. didaskalovs), 12to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says that God has established some people as “teachers” in the Church; this appears to be a direct violation of Jesus’ prohibition against calling anyone “teacher”. Does God contradict Himself?
James Violates This Command
James 3:1
1Not many of you should presume to be teachers (Gr. didaskaloi), my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.
James, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says that not many believers should presume to be “teachers.” This implies that a few (though not many) should and would rightfully have that position. Does God contradict Himself?
James 2:21
21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
James, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, refers to the spiritual fatherhood of Abraham. This is a terrible precedent to establish if Jesus has prohibited us from using the term “father.”
Stephen Violates This Command
Acts 7:2
2To this he replied: "Brothers and fathers, listen to me!
+++
In light of all these passages, does it really make sense to suggest that we should "call no man father" in a literalist sense?
The problem is one tiny word that you have omitted. Here is the passage:
21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
IOW, Jesus says, "In the same manner that the Father has sent me, so I am sending you." Well, how did God the Father send Jesus? With all authority. And how does Jesus send his own disciples? With all authority (cf. Mt. 16:18-19) which includes the authority to forgive sins. This is supported by this passage:
Matthew 9:4-8
4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” 7 Then the man got up and went home. 8 When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man.
What authority is that? The authority to forgive sins.
First, the passage in James contains a clear reference to the priests of the Church if you read it in context...we must “confess our sins to one another,” not just privately to God. Second, James 5:16 must be read in the context of James 5:14-15, which is referring to the healing power (both physical and spiritual) of the priests of the Church. Hence, when James says “therefore” in verse 16, he must be referring to the men he was writing about in verses 14 and 15 – these men are the ordained priests of the Church, to whom we must confess our sins.
James 5:13-16
13 Is any one among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise. 14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.
And there is some good and some error in what you have written. Yes, if someone is unable to confess to a priest, then God takes that into account. However, it is normatively necessary to confess grave (mortal) sin to a priest. So, the the interpretation does not fall apart; confession is a normal part of the life of the Church but there are exceptions that make sacramental confession impossible.
To the contrary, Rob. I understand better than I'm being given credit for.
Reading hundreds of posts in these threads over the past three weeks has led me to realize that there is no one, single "position" shared by all of you.
Some of you are not angry with God. Others clearly are, IMO.
The latter are not technically atheists, but they are hanging out with atheists in this forum because this is where ridicule of God can be found, and that is what they want to partake in since they are, you know, pissed off.
(May 30, 2015 at 3:39 am)Salacious B. Crumb Wrote: Catholic doctrine teaches mary was a perpetual virgin, in Mat 1:25, it says, mary remained a virgin UNTIL she gave birth to jesus.
After he almost died in an automobile accident, my grandfather never took another drink of alcohol until the day he died.
Does the cessation of his life imply that he began drinking after he was dead? Read on...
There are actually TWO issues in Matthew 1:25 that need to be addressed: "until" and "firstborn", so my answer will cover both.
The Catholic Church teaches that Mary remained a perpetual virgin and that Jesus did not have any brothers and sisters. Many non-Catholics doubt these claims, and they frequently cite Matthew 1:25 in support of their views that Mary and Joseph had normal sexual relations after they were married and that Jesus was only the first of many children that resulted from their union. Let’s examine this important verse more closely using two popular Protestant translations.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (KJV)
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. (NIV)
“Until”
In verse 25, the Greek heôs, “until,” does not necessarily contrast “before” to “after.” It means that up to a certain moment, something happened or not, without considering what happened after that moment. For example, the Greek text of the Septuagint says, in 2 Samuel 6:23, that “Mikal, daughter of Saul, had no children until (heôs) the days of her death.” This obviously does not suggest that she had children after her death. Matthew is interested in underlining that Jesus’ birth and conception were carried out without the intervention of any man.
Remove the word "until" from the verse, and you have the following:
"Joseph had no relations with her...she brought forth her firstborn"
Two simple statements. Protestants really disagree with the first of these two; therefore, the word "until" is the whole argument. Either Joseph held off "until" and then proceeded to have relations (the Protestant position) OR Joseph had no relations with her. Period. (the Catholic position).
Naturally, Protestants argue for a simple reading of the text, but Catholics counter that "until" doesn't actually imply the cessation of past action (namely, holding off). Although things look intuitively obvious for the Protestant point of view, in actual fact, the Catholic position is not harmed at all by the word "until" because that word implies nothing...and other verses in scripture PROVE that point.
Genesis 8:7
The raven "did not return TILL the waters were dried up..."
Did the raven ever return?
Deuteronomy 34:6 (Knox)
No one knew the location of his grave "until this present day"
But we know that no one has known it since that day either.
Luke 1:80
"And the child grew and became strong in spirit; and he lived in the desert until he appeared publicly to Israel."
The Greek word translated "until" in this passage is heos, the same word used in Matthew 1:25. The child spoken of is John the Baptist who also lived in the desert after he appeared in public (cf. Matt. 3:1, Mark 1:3,4; Luke 3:2).
1 Timothy 6:14
"....that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless UNTIL our Lord Jesus Christ's appearing..."
May this commandment be disobeyed after Jesus returns?
Because “until” does not require a cessation of activity, Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to disprove the perpetual virginity of Mary.
“Firstborn”
Many non-Catholics assume that Mary had a second child because Jesus is referred to as her “firstborn son”. However, “firstborn” is merely a term applied to the first child that "opened the womb". The term does not imply a "secondborn". In ancient times, a woman who only had one child during the course of her lifetime still called that child the "firstborn". Scripture also supports this understanding:
Numbers 3:40
And the LORD said unto Moses, Number all the firstborn of the males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward, and take the number of their names.
Note here that a child as young as one month old was called the "firstborn". Given the length of the human gestation period, it is not possible for a month old "firstborn" infant to have a younger sibling. Thus, we see clearly that "firstborn" was a technical term that did not prove that additional children had been born.
(May 30, 2015 at 3:39 am)Salacious B. Crumb Wrote: The bible says to only call your father in heaven, father. Not call priests father. I would agree that it’s minor, but I don’t understand why the church would contradict that.
The Church isn't contradicting what the Bible teaches; the problem is in understanding what Jesus was saying. If we followed the "Call No Man Father" prohibition literally, then no human on earth would have that title, and we would have lost the feel for the meaning of fatherhood since the word would have been expunged from our vocabulary and our conscience.
Think not? Consider how the trappings of European royalty have no meaning for Americans, and I think you'll get some sense of how this happens.
Now, if we had no understanding of what it means to have or to be a human father, the "Fatherhood' of God as revealed to us by Him would be completely sterile.
But since you have some familiarity with scripture, let's look first at the verse you are referring to and then at additional verses which are relevant.
Matthew 23:8-10
8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' (Gr. rabbi) for you have only one Master (Gr. didaskalos, kathegetes) and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' (Gr. patera) for you have one Father (Gr. pater), and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' (Gr. kathegetai) for you have one Teacher (Gr. kathegetes), the Christ.” (NIV)
Matthew 23:8-10
8”But be not ye called Rabbi (Gr. rabbi): for one is your Master (Gr. didaskalos, kathegetes), even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no man your father (Gr. patera) upon the earth: for one is your Father (Gr. pater), which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters (Gr. kathegetai) : for one is your Master (Gr. kathegetes), even Christ.” (KJV)
Based on the preceding passage, many non-Catholics claim that the Catholic Church violates the scriptural prohibition against calling anyone “father” since its priests are commonly called “father” and the pope is referred to as the “Holy Father.” Is this really what the Bible teaches? Let’s take a closer look at other verses to see whether this is really what the Bible tells us.
Jesus Violates This Command
Luke 16:24
24So he called to him, “Father (Gr. pater) Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.”
Jesus tells a parable in which He has one of the characters speak to “Father Abraham” which would obviously be a bad example for His audience. Does Jesus contradict Himself?
Paul Violates This Command
Romans 4:1-18
1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?
In this passage, Paul refers to Abraham as a spiritual father eight times. This is a terrible precedent to establish if Jesus has prohibited us from using the term “father.”
1 Corinthians 4:14-15
14I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. 15Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers (Gr. pateras), for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.
In this passage, Paul refers to himself as the spiritual father of the Corinthians. This is a terrible precedent to establish if Jesus has prohibited us from using the term “father.”
Ephesians 4:11-13
11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers (Gr. didaskalovs), 12to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says that God has established some people as “teachers” in the Church; this appears to be a direct violation of Jesus’ prohibition against calling anyone “teacher”. Does God contradict Himself?
James Violates This Command
James 3:1
1Not many of you should presume to be teachers (Gr. didaskaloi), my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.
James, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says that not many believers should presume to be “teachers.” This implies that a few (though not many) should and would rightfully have that position. Does God contradict Himself?
James 2:21
21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
James, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, refers to the spiritual fatherhood of Abraham. This is a terrible precedent to establish if Jesus has prohibited us from using the term “father.”
Stephen Violates This Command
Acts 7:2
2To this he replied: "Brothers and fathers, listen to me!
+++
In light of all these passages, does it really make sense to suggest that we should "call no man father" in a literalist sense?
(May 30, 2015 at 3:39 am)Salacious B. Crumb Wrote: I can actually see where you’re coming from, especially in context, with the verse before that saying, “My father has sent me, so I send you”, but I don’t see how this relates to a priest, bishop, pope, etc. needing to be a mediator between man and god, in order to be forgiven of sin. This is completely made up by the catholic church. Jesus doesn’t tell his apostles to bless their successors, so that they too, can forgive other sins.
The problem is one tiny word that you have omitted. Here is the passage:
21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
IOW, Jesus says, "In the same manner that the Father has sent me, so I am sending you." Well, how did God the Father send Jesus? With all authority. And how does Jesus send his own disciples? With all authority (cf. Mt. 16:18-19) which includes the authority to forgive sins. This is supported by this passage:
Matthew 9:4-8
4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” 7 Then the man got up and went home. 8 When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man.
What authority is that? The authority to forgive sins.
Quote:I can’t interpret it the way you do, because of Jam 5:16 says to confess our sins to one another, pray for each other, and forgive one another that we shall be healed. This is a clear instruction in the bible, that can’t be left up to interpretation. So, there is a contradiction here, if you interpret it the way you do.
First, the passage in James contains a clear reference to the priests of the Church if you read it in context...we must “confess our sins to one another,” not just privately to God. Second, James 5:16 must be read in the context of James 5:14-15, which is referring to the healing power (both physical and spiritual) of the priests of the Church. Hence, when James says “therefore” in verse 16, he must be referring to the men he was writing about in verses 14 and 15 – these men are the ordained priests of the Church, to whom we must confess our sins.
James 5:13-16
13 Is any one among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise. 14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.
Quote:I also don’t think this makes sense, because there are many people around the world that can’t get in contact with a catholic priest. That would mean that these people couldn’t be forgiven.. correct? And, if your response is that they don't know, so god understands, then why would jesus suggest it, knowing that his message would not reach everyone on this planet? This is another reason why this interpretation falls apart. You can confess your wrongdoings to one another, and confess your wrongdoings to god, without a priest. I would say, jesus is saying to forgive one another, if you don’t, then your father in heaven won’t forgive you. This is something that is more relatable to people, in general, in my opinion.
And there is some good and some error in what you have written. Yes, if someone is unable to confess to a priest, then God takes that into account. However, it is normatively necessary to confess grave (mortal) sin to a priest. So, the the interpretation does not fall apart; confession is a normal part of the life of the Church but there are exceptions that make sacramental confession impossible.
(May 30, 2015 at 5:34 am)robvalue Wrote: "Angry at god" has to be the most ridiculous strawman going, and an admission that you really can't, or won't, understand our position at all.
To the contrary, Rob. I understand better than I'm being given credit for.
Reading hundreds of posts in these threads over the past three weeks has led me to realize that there is no one, single "position" shared by all of you.
Some of you are not angry with God. Others clearly are, IMO.
The latter are not technically atheists, but they are hanging out with atheists in this forum because this is where ridicule of God can be found, and that is what they want to partake in since they are, you know, pissed off.
