S
Steven_John
Guest
Dont know why you offered it quoting me as i never offered she was not
- Status
L
Luke65
Guest
I know, I was saying I wouldn’t try to convince you unless I knew that you believed in the Virgin birth. That was all I meant.
S
Steven_John
Guest
I do
A
adrift
Guest
Makes no sense for a woman with a husband to ask unless there is something else going on, a vow of virginity. What she is asking the angel is not how can this happen because I am a virgin but what about my vow of virginity? Is God asking that I renounce the vow?
C
Cachonga
Guest
She was engaged, not married. People with vows of virginity do not get married (or can you show me where such a thing occurred?). You are reading an awful lot into this, but your assertion is not supported by the text.
A
adrift
Guest
Who says they don’t get married? You said
You can’t have it both ways either they were married or they weren’t. They were married. Marriage at the time was accomplished in two steps. They had a ceremony but did not live together. The wife stayed with her family while she prepared to take over her husbands home. This was the betrothal period. That is why Joseph had to divorce her. You don’t have a divorce unless there is a marriage.
I am reading nothing into the text that isn’t there and you haven’t given a reasonable explanation of Mary’s question to the angel.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
So…you’re saying God stopped speaking to people once the Bible was written?lol He spoke directly to human beings just like he did to the ones who wrote His commands in the Bible.
Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
And just as He does still today to those who are open to hearing His voice.
P
panevino
Guest
in addition to newadvent.org/fathers/0114.htm re James
there is also this, apparently this symeon is the simon listed in Mat 13:55
Church History (Eusebius) book iii chapter 11 (265-340AD)
Chapter 11. Symeon rules the Church of Jerusalem after James.
- After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James.
- They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.
newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm
P
panevino
Guest
one more i stumbled across
The work of Papias was evidently written in his old age, say between the years 115 and 140. called by St. Irenæus “a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, a man of old time”.
Fragments of Papias (X)
(1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4.) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord’s. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord’s. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.
newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm
The work of Papias was evidently written in his old age, say between the years 115 and 140. called by St. Irenæus “a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, a man of old time”.
Fragments of Papias (X)
(1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4.) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord’s. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord’s. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.
newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm
G
Ginger2
Guest
G
Ginger2
Guest
How do Catholics explain Luk 1:36 “syggenēs” ? This word distinguishes between blood relatives, such as a cousin.
While “brother” can be a cousin or other relative, or a fellow Christian, it can also mean a birth brother.
Compare these verses:
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
Jud 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, [and] called:
These verses are obviously making an attempt to positively identify the persons of James and Jude.
If Galatians was simply identifying James as another apostle, why point out he is the Lord’s brother? Why not say James the brother of John?
Or as was done with the Judases: Judas the brother of James as opposed to Judas Iscariot
See how they wrote to specifically identify a person?
To add " the Lord’s brother." at the end of a sentence that has already identified the person an Apostle is specifically identifying that person. If he were just a distant relative, the positive identification would be better made by identifying who his father or birth brother is.
James the son of Zebedee
James the son of Alphaeus
James the brother of John
James the brother of Judas
James the brother of Jude
James the Lord’s brother.
While “brother” can be a cousin or other relative, or a fellow Christian, it can also mean a birth brother.
Compare these verses:
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
Jud 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, [and] called:
These verses are obviously making an attempt to positively identify the persons of James and Jude.
If Galatians was simply identifying James as another apostle, why point out he is the Lord’s brother? Why not say James the brother of John?
Or as was done with the Judases: Judas the brother of James as opposed to Judas Iscariot
See how they wrote to specifically identify a person?
To add " the Lord’s brother." at the end of a sentence that has already identified the person an Apostle is specifically identifying that person. If he were just a distant relative, the positive identification would be better made by identifying who his father or birth brother is.
James the son of Zebedee
James the son of Alphaeus
James the brother of John
James the brother of Judas
James the brother of Jude
James the Lord’s brother.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Thanks. Sorry if I misread that.
Ok, then, you agree that God has and does continue to speak to people apart from the Bible. Then you can agree that there can be truths God has communicated to people apart from the Bible (such truths, of course, cannot contradict the Scriptures).
Thanks again for the clarification.
C
Cachonga
Guest
Sorry if my response confused you. When the angel came to Mary, they were still in the betrothel period. They didn’t start living together until after the angel advised Joseph what was going on, then Joseph took Mary as his wife (took her into his house).
You want a reasonable explanation for her response? How about this - we don’t know where she was or what she was doing when the angel appeared to her. We also know from Scripture that angels typically appear as human beings, and are not always readily identifiable as angels (see Heb 13:2). Imagine this - you’re a young girl, engaged to be married in a small town where practically everybody knows everybody else. Suddenly, this stranger comes along, greets you by name and tells you you’re going to bear a son. Wouldn’t you start looking around to see if anyone could hear you scream for help as you informed the “stranger” that you’re a virgin (thereby letting him know that if he tries something he will be found out)?
I’m sure you (and others) will think this explanation is absurd, but I suggest it makes at least as much sense as your “vow of virginity” explanation.
A
adrift
Guest
She was not engaged to Joseph that is a modern term she was betrothed. Mary and Joseph were married at this point but before they came together. You have an explanation but as you already admit it is absurd. If she thought, as you conjecture, than she would have ran away screaming. Even in your scenario the answer makes no sense. Why would you tell a potential rapist you are a virgin.
but at least it is an explanation not a good one though.
G
Ginger2
Guest
Something else that everyone seems to overlook is Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest:…
Joseph, a carpenter is not referred to as “the Highest”. Mary did not consider the angel was speaking of Joseph as able to father the Son of “the Highest”.
think about it…the angel did not simply say Mary would conceive and bear a son. The angel stated she would bear the Son of the Highest, meaning God’s son.
So it is not just a matter of her not yet having sexual relations with her husband.
Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Ginger
G
Ginger2
Guest
When a couple was betrothed, it was considered a binding marriage even tho the couple did not begin to live together and did not have marital relations until after they began cohabitation.
This is common knowledge. Joseph and Mary were intending to have a normal man wife marriage - that’s what betrothed means.
C
Cachonga
Guest
I did not admit my explanation was absurd, I said you (and others) would think it absurd. I pointed out that my explanation made at least as much sense as your “vow of virginity” explanation. Furthermore, as I mentioned, we don’t know where Mary was or what she was doing when the angel showed up, so maybe there was no place to run. Admittedly, this is mere speculation, but so is the idea that she had a vow of virginity (and nobody with a vow of virginty would get married, or do you have evidence of such a thing happening outside of this alleged instance?).
G
Ginger2
Guest
Good point Cachonga,
Is there any supporting historical evidence that temple virgins were regularly given into a “celibate marriage” relationship? Or even that they were customarily put out of the temple and into the care of elderly widowers?
Proof such as that would at least strengthen your argument.
Ginger
Is there any supporting historical evidence that temple virgins were regularly given into a “celibate marriage” relationship? Or even that they were customarily put out of the temple and into the care of elderly widowers?
Proof such as that would at least strengthen your argument.
Ginger
A
adrift
Guest
The fact that she asked such a strange question shows that they were not planning a “normal” marriage. Betrothed does not mean the same today as it did then. Today it means a promise of marriage then it WAS marriage.
A
adrift
Guest
Oh? Why couldn’t Joseph have been the father? God could have done it that way. Mary wouldn’t have known God’s plans. You are seeing this through the lens of what happened not how Mary would have understood it.
- Status