Catholics and Non-Catholics: Do you believe in the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother?

[Dokimas]

No, I was actually expecting an answer.

Elvisman made two statements: The first repeated what was described in Luke 1:31-35. The second said the Mary was not an idiot.

You said they were his opinion. His first statement was clearly correct so I was wondering if you were saying his second statement was his opinion. And did you agree or disagree with his second statement.

Which statement(s) do you think is his opinion, do you agree or disagree, and why?

Is your native language English?

Elvis: “Mary wasn’t an idiot who didn’t understand that she could BECOME pregnant after sleeping with Joseph. This is clear evidence that she had no intention of having sex.”

It was his opinion that to think differently than him that would mean Mary was an idiot. I think differently and I DON’T think Mary was an idiot.

It was the opinion of Elvis the it’s clear Mary had no intention of having sex.

Pretty simple.

 

[Stephen168]

Luke 1:31-35:

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Elvis: “Mary wasn’t an idiot who didn’t understand that she could BECOME pregnant after sleeping with Joseph. This is clear evidence that she had no intention of having sex.”

It was his opinion that to think differently than him that would mean Mary was an idiot.

No he didn’t say that at all.

It was the opinion of Elvis the it’s clear Mary had no intention of having sex.

Yes, that is what Luke 1:31-35 says also.

I will assume that English is not your native language.

 

[david_ruiz]

Because Gabriel didn’t tell her that she WAS pregnant. He told her that she was going to be pregnant.

Mary wasn**'t an idiot who didn’t understand that she could BECOME** pregnant after sleeping with Joseph. This is clear evidence that she had no intention of having sex.

I understand that Mary’s response of “knowing no man” is indicative of something .The pregnancy was in the future ,and what could be more normal in a marriage .I just am not sure it is “clear” that she made a vow of celibacy . She was betrothed, a bit like engaged today. However, back then it was more.They were legally married, papers signed ,dowry paid etc.etc… The only thing yet to be done was the wedding ceremony and consumation.This could be done at any time. I believe (not totally sure) they could have had sex ,and it would not have been fornication , for they were married (just no ceremony yet). So Mary was married , and was waiting for her ceremony, which Joseph could plan at any time. .She was in waiting and possibly asking herself , “when Joseph when ?”. A bit like today being engaged ,but with no wedding date, and time passes and passes.This could have been the reason for Mary’s response. She could not say "but I am not married yet ",because she was. She could have meant it was not consumated ,and "I have no idea when Joseph will come for me .It may have even been a plea to the angel ,a hinting , that “I am willing but you got to get Joseph in on the program , cause he is procrastinating and who knows when he will want to consumate”. A bit like today , Mary would tell the angel,"Sure ,I’ll have a child ,but I gotta get married first ( we have been chaste during our engagement). Again, Mary was married -betrothed ,so all she could say is I have not consumated ,or had the ceremony or have not known Joesph . I believe this is just as plausible a scenario as her vow of chastity . Both views have to be extrapolated from scripture .Thank-you for listening to my view .Yours is very plausible and coherent also. One thing we both can agree on , this is a perfect scripture to show her virginity , beyond a shadow of a doubt .If she had said , I am not consumated yet or had my “wedding ceremony” yet some could say maybe she had pre-betrothel sex etc. .This makes it very clear .She had sex with no man ,not even her husband.

 

[elvisman]

So using the term ‘virgin’ in the verse of question meets the definition of the Greek word(s) used.

Not fully, no. Only in the partial sense, but not in the future sense.

Put it this way. Suppose an angel appeared to a girl in New York tonight who was planning on getting married and she happened to be a virgin. Suppose he told her that she was going to have a child. If she was to ask the angel, "How can this be?", you would think she was either insane or REALLY naive not to know that she could get pregnant after sleeping with her husband.

Why is it that you’re not just as shocked by Mary’s apparent naivete? After all, wouldn’t it stand to reason that she would KNOW about the facts of life if she was about to be married and have conjugal relations with her husband?

**The plain fact - as presented by the text is that Mary wasn’**t stupid or naive. She was resolute in her decision NOT to have conjugal relations. This would lend support to the 2nd Century document, the "Protoevangelium of James".

Could you show documentation showing Mary’s confusion was as you think it was?

I believe I HAVE - several times, in fact:
"How can this be since I have no relations with a man?"

 

[adrift]

I understand that Mary’s response of “knowing no man” is indicative of something .The pregnancy was in the future ,and what could be more normal in a marriage .I just am not sure it is “clear” that she made a vow of celibacy . She was betrothed, a bit like engaged today. However, back then it was more.They were legally married, papers signed ,dowry paid etc.etc… The only thing yet to be done was the wedding ceremony and consumation.This could be done at any time. I believe (not totally sure) they could have had sex ,and it would not have been fornication , for they were married (just no ceremony yet). So Mary was married , and was waiting for her ceremony, which Joseph could plan at any time. .She was in waiting and possibly asking herself , “when Joseph when ?”. A bit like today being engaged ,but with no wedding date, and time passes and passes.This could have been the reason for Mary’s response. She could not say "but I am not married yet ",because she was. She could have meant it was not consumated ,and "I have no idea when Joseph will come for me .It may have even been a plea to the angel ,a hinting , that “I am willing but you got to get Joseph in on the program , cause he is procrastinating and who knows when he will want to consumate”. A bit like today , Mary would tell the angel,"Sure ,I’ll have a child ,but I gotta get married first ( we have been chaste during our engagement). Again, Mary was married -betrothed ,so all she could say is I have not consumated ,or had the ceremony or have not known Joesph . I believe this is just as plausible a scenario as her vow of chastity . Both views have to be extrapolated from scripture .Thank-you for listening to my view .Yours is very plausible and coherent also. One thing we both can agree on , this is a perfect scripture to show her virginity , beyond a shadow of a doubt .If she had said , I am not consumated yet or had my “wedding ceremony” yet some could say maybe she had pre-betrothel sex etc. .This makes it very clear .She had sex with no man ,not even her husband.

You have given a well worded response. As you say it is plausible and the first time I have heard an explanation that could be taken seriously. It also shows what Jesus was talking about in His parable of the wise women versus the unwise women. When the bridegroom would come was unknown to the bride. However, it wasn’t totally unknown. This betrothal period lasted for only a year. The day would have been known what would not have been known is the hour of that day. The second part of the marriage only consisted of the groom taking his bride to his house. There are some problems with your view. One I have already mentioned is that Mary would have known the day if not the hour. Second her statement isn’t Joseph hasn’t come yet. In fact, she doesn’t even mention Joseph. She makes her statement more encompassing.
I really thank you for your well thought out response.

 

[elvisman]

Elvis: “Mary wasn’t an idiot who didn’t understand that she could BECOME pregnant after sleeping with Joseph. This is clear evidence that she had no intention of having sex.”

It was his opinion that to think differently than him that would mean Mary was an idiot. I think differently and I DON’T think Mary was an idiot.

Then, why do you think Mary asked the angel, "How can this be since I have no relations with a man"?

 

[elvisman]

I understand that Mary’s response of “knowing no man” is indicative of something .The pregnancy was in the future ,and what could be more normal in a marriage .I just am not sure it is “clear” that she made a vow of celibacy . She was betrothed, a bit like engaged today. However, back then it was more.They were legally married, papers signed ,dowry paid etc.etc… The only thing yet to be done was the wedding ceremony and consumation.This could be done at any time. I believe (not totally sure) they could have had sex ,and it would not have been fornication , for they were married (just no ceremony yet). So Mary was married , and was waiting for her ceremony, which Joseph could plan at any time. .She was in waiting and possibly asking herself , “when Joseph when ?”. A bit like today being engaged ,but with no wedding date, and time passes and passes.This could have been the reason for Mary’s response. She could not say "but I am not married yet ",because she was. She could have meant it was not consumated ,and "I have no idea when Joseph will come for me .It may have even been a plea to the angel ,a hinting , that “I am willing but you got to get Joseph in on the program , cause he is procrastinating and who knows when he will want to consumate”. A bit like today , Mary would tell the angel,"Sure ,I’ll have a child ,but I gotta get married first ( we have been chaste during our engagement). Again, Mary was married -betrothed ,so all she could say is I have not consumated ,or had the ceremony or have not known Joesph . I believe this is just as plausible a scenario as her vow of chastity . Both views have to be extrapolated from scripture .Thank-you for listening to my view .Yours is very plausible and coherent also. One thing we both can agree on , this is a perfect scripture to show her virginity , beyond a shadow of a doubt .If she had said , I am not consumated yet or had my “wedding ceremony” yet some could say maybe she had pre-betrothel sex etc. .This makes it very clear .She had sex with no man ,not even her husband.

There is one major flaw in your theory:
**The angel never told her WHEN she was going to become pregnant so there was no reason for her to be so puzzled. She KNEW she was to be married soon - she already WAS in a sense. According to Jewish Law regarding consummation - she would have had relations with Joseph the night of the ceremony. **

There was no logical reason for her confusion other than the fact that she was resolute in her decision not to have relations.

 

[elvisman]

Sure, all kinds of things could have happened but in those example, it’s silly to think a change did NOT happen. That’s precisely our point. The only thing that can change for a husband and wife who ‘knew not each other’ until her 1st born came into this world is to have sex.

That is a completely bogus answer, given the examples that have been supplied (2 Sam. 6:23, Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44**).**

Here is another one that I’m sure you and your buddy Todd will say is a weak example.
Deut. 34:6 tells us that nobody knows where the grave of moses is located “until this present day”.

Does this mean that everybody knew AFTER that present day when Deuteronomy was written??

You guys are dead wrong when you limit the word "until" to one definition.

 

[david_ruiz]

There is one major flaw in your theory:
The angel never told her WHEN she was going to become pregnant so there was no reason for her to be so puzzled. She KNEW she was to be married soon - she already WAS in a sense. According to Jewish Law regarding consummation - she would have had relations with Joseph the night of the ceremony.

There was no logical reason for her confusion other than the fact that she was resolute in her decision not to have relations.

Thank-you I understand not time was given for the pregnancy , but i would not consider it a major flaw , for she did not know when Joseph would come for her either. You are assuming it would be soon…Would it not have been nice for Mary to state your position ,like, “How can this be for I have taken a vow of chastity ?” If this were the case, it was serious business. She would need special permission to break the vow , a vow before God .I think she would have addressed it head-on with the angel .There is no dispensation given by God ,from the Angel.Again, we both have good scenarios,but filled with extrapolating.

 

[david_ruiz]

You have given a well worded response. As you say it is plausible and the first time I have heard an explanation that could be taken seriously. It also shows what Jesus was talking about in His parable of the wise women versus the unwise women. When the bridegroom would come was unknown to the bride. However, it wasn’t totally unknown. This betrothal period lasted for only a year. The day would have been known what would not have been known is the hour of that day. The second part of the marriage only consisted of the groom taking his bride to his house. There are some problems with your view. One I have already mentioned is that Mary would have known the day if not the hour. Second her statement isn’t Joseph hasn’t come yet. In fact, she doesn’t even mention Joseph. She makes her statement more encompassing.
I really thank you for your well thought out response.

Thank-you .Yes, 10 maidens came to mind also-cool .Thanks for further info on betrothal. Agree., her statement is more encompassing (she did not fool around ,not even with Joseph).
Remember, she did not mention any vow of chastity either .I heard these vows were serious .Got any additional info of chastity vow , and how to break it ? Remember her not knowing any man statement was BEFORE knowing it was going to be thru the Holy Spirit , and not a man.

 

[adrift]

Quoting myself so people can see ‘my deception’ as called by adrift

• the Tasker quote is pulled from the wiki without modification (obviously not the full article though)
• the bold statement is not cited as an official definition, but is in perfect allignement with what I have sated in this forum, it represents my belief on the subject.

Where is my deception adrift??

I feel very sad and let down. I thought better of you.
Your statement that you cite as being your own was lifted off of Wikipedia. If you handed it in as an English assignment, the teacher would rightfully nail you for plagiarism. I know you changed it to fit your idea but that doesn’t alter that it was lifted from someone else and presented as your own.
What you left out contradicts the impression you want to leave that you have provided a legitimate definition that supports your usage when you have not. :tsktsk:

Debate on this point is sometimes obscured by the fact that the Greek preposition ἕως could either occur with a clausal complement in its temporal sense or with a nominal complement in a spatial sense, where it meant something like up to.[61] John Hainsworth remarks: “***'The use of ‘until’ in Matthew 1:25, then, is purely to indicate that Christ was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, not conceived by Joseph and Mary, since they did not ‘know’ each other ‘until’ the birth. In this context ‘until’ is really synonymous with ‘before’. ***If on the contrary it were meant in its full contemporary English sense—that is, if it really meant that Joseph and Mary’s chaste relationship changed after the birth—then the stylistics present another big problem: the reader would have to believe that Matthew was actually inviting contemplation of the couple’s later sexual activity. This is doubtful to say the least.”[62] Although in the English translation the phrase with “until” is ambiguous, it is less so in the original Greek text.

 

[Todd520]

I feel very sad and let down. I thought better of you.
Your statement that you cite as being your own was lifted off of Wikipedia. If you handed it in as an English assignment, the teacher would rightfully nail you for plagiarism. I know you changed it to fit your idea but that doesn’t alter that it was lifted from someone else and presented as your own.
What you left out contradicts the impression you want to leave that you have provided a legitimate definition that supports your usage when you have not. :tsktsk:

No no, I said it reflected what I have been saying in this forum for the past week. Nothing deceptive about what I did.

Stop whinning and stick to the issues

 

[adrift]

Thank-you .Yes, 10 maidens came to mind also-cool .Thanks for further info on betrothal. Agree., her statement is more encompassing (she did not fool around ,not even with Joseph).
Remember, she did not mention any vow of chastity either .I heard these vows were serious .Got any additional info of chastity vow , and how to break it ? Remember her not knowing any man statement was BEFORE knowing it was going to be thru the Holy Spirit , and not a man.

What I remember is that she did ask about her vow of virginity. We are all called to be chaste no matter if we are married or not. She asked the angel when she said I know not man. Of course, you realize that is how I see things already.

 

[adrift]

No no, I said it reflected what I have been saying in this forum for the past week. Nothing deceptive about what I did.

Stop whinning and stick to the issues

Sir you took someone else words, editing a little, adding one word and presented it as your own. Now you may not have meant to plagiarize but that doesn’t mean that you didn’t. Were you deceptive? I guess that is a judgment call that I will back off from for it isn’t worth the bandwidth. I would suggest to you to leave the argument of “until” alone. Unless you can provide a legitimate dictionary that will back you up. Otherwise your just

 

[Todd520]

Sir you took someone else words, editing a little, adding one word and presented it as your own. Now you may not have meant to plagiarize but that doesn’t mean that you didn’t. Were you deceptive? I guess that is a judgment call that I will back off from for it isn’t worth the bandwidth. I would suggest to you to leave the argument of “until” alone. Unless you can provide a legitimate dictionary that will back you up. Otherwise your just

Nope Wrong, I have never claimed any of the virgin discussion is all my own - i’ve read extensively from many sources to develop my responses.

If I ever present something as origninal thought, I insist you should accuse me of stealing it. Until then, just debate the merits of the arguments.

 

[adrift]

Nope Wrong, I have never claimed any of the virgin discussion is all my own - i’ve read extensively from many sources to develop my responses.

If I ever present something as origninal thought, I insist you should accuse me of stealing it. Until then, just debate the merits of the arguments.

When you don’t use quotes or id an idea not your own, then it is assumed that you are presenting your own and not plagiarizing.

NO no no,
I only had one quote, which was cut and pasted from the wiki, with a quote box.

Your other objection was not a quote, and you are welcome to disagree or agree with it.

From the article

If on the contrary it were meant in its full contemporary English sense—that is, if it really meant that Joseph and Mary’s chaste relationship changed after the birth—then the stylistics present another big problem: the reader would have to believe that Matthew was actually inviting contemplation of the couple’s later sexual activity.
The words in red is what you left out. You also added the word signified. I think that is dishonest.

From your post

Until’ used in its full contemporary English sense signifies that Joseph and Mary’s chaste relationship changed after the birth.

As the color highlights, you lifted it right from the article and presented as your own that is plagiarizing. Weren’t you taught that in school. I think that was the first thing drummed into us. I don’t know how many times I heard “Don’t use the exact words of an article but put it into your own words.” If you can’t do that you should learn to cite your source.

 

[dianaiad]

My question is: Why are we bandying words with those who have rejected the True Faith and have embraced a false, man-made religion.

I dunno, hosemonkey, why are you? After all, you chose to navigate to this specific forum and subforum, which is dedictated to discussing non-Catholic religions…and you’ve BEEN around long enough to know that there are real non-Catholics here.

Given this, I think you are asking the wrong question…or at least asking it of the wrong people. Try looking in a mirror and asking. Asking oneself questions this important is good for the soul…and will keep you out of here (where you obviously don’t like the company) at least for the duration of the question/answer session. Who knows? You might even get an answer.

Why are we debating one who is apostate and has rejected true Religion in favor of false mormonism. All the more reprehensible because having once accepted the True Faith, has deliberately rejected it. The ultimate fate of those who do this is quite clear, that unrepented, this sin will warrant Hell. Harsh? No, just the Truth.

Well, you don’t need to debate him–or me, for that matter. Since you ARE, however, debating him (and me, for that matter), the rules say that you need to show some courtesy and not consign your opponents to hell.

I’m just sayin’, is all.

 

[Todd520]

When you don’t use quotes or id an idea not your own, then it is assumed that you are presenting your own and not plagiarizing.

From the article

From your post

As the color highlights, you lifted it right from the article and presented as your own that is plagiarizing. Weren’t you taught that in school. I think that was the first thing drummed into us. I don’t know how many times I heard “Don’t use the exact words of an article but put it into your own words.” If you can’t do that you should learn to cite your source.

adrift,
plagarism requires claiming text or an idea as your own. As said above, I have never made such a claim here. In fact I’ve claimed the opposite, that all my ideas came from other sources.

I’m also not submitting any of this work for a shool class.

Are you taking this tact because you don’t have the mental horsepower to argue the points?

 

[hosemonkey]

Well, you don’t need to debate him–or me, for that matter. Since you ARE, however, debating him (and me, for that matter), the rules say that you need to show some courtesy and not consign your opponents to hell.

 

[GaryTaylor]

How many thread are going on explaining this very topic? You know what I’m gonna cut and paste all the relevant info on Windows and save for referrence. Were covering the exact same ground and Bible verses on a few different threads now.