Luke 1:26 - 33

[Des]

When Mary visited them immediately after Gabriel spoke, why did John jump in the womb of Elizabeth upon hearing her voice when Mary arrived? Do you think it was because of Mary alone and the promise of the fruit of her womb, or what was already in Mary’s womb?

I can agree with you on the day of the Annunciation that Jesus was conceived but only ‘After’ Mary gave her consent. So when the Angel said She would conceive before that, He would obviously have meant it in the future tense and it really isn’t a huge step to say that She would have assumed it would be with Joseph first.

I’m surprised that it seems Tom is on of the few Catholics in this thread who has ever heard of this argument? That is the impression I’m getting anyways. It’s most often used as possible proof of Mary remaining ‘Ever Virgin’ to our protestant bretheran but it is by far not a new argument.

 

[Verisimilitude]

And you’re saying she knew all of this before she asked her question in verse 34, impressive logic, she knew the answers already (somehow) but asked anyway!

No, I never said she knew anything before Gabriel spoke to her. Before that visitation she was a young Jewish woman betrothed to be married, expecting to have a normal marriage. After that ‘5 minute’ visitation she knew how (Holy Spirit), who (God), when (before her marriage), and why (God favored her). You are the one assuming her perpetual virginity and vow of celibacy before the visitation. From that assumption you are making mountains out of mole hills that have zero to do with anything.

Let me ask, did she also know at that time of the prophesy spoken of Zechariah in Luke 1:67 prior to her asking how she shall conceive?

You tell me. Would Gabriel have need to tell Mary something she already knew? Zechariah could not speak from that visit in the Temple until John was born. He was mute for at least 6 months before Mary was visited them. Scripture says Elizabeth hid herself for 5 of those months. Was it common knowledge that Elizabeth was pregnant? Do you think Mary visited Elizabeth after her visitation with Gabriel because Gabriel told her Elizabeth was pregnant or because Elizabeth told Mary she was preganant and Zechariah lost his voice before Gabriel spoke to her?

You seem hung up on a contradiction that does not exist.

 

[Tom]

At the moment Mary asked “how shall this be” (Luke 1:34), she did not know the conception of her child would be miraculous. She did not know the Holy Spirit would overshadow her. She did not know the conception would occur prior to her being taken into the house of Joseph as his wife. She did not know the Father of the child would be God himself.
A woman who did not know all of these things, being betrothed to a man, expecting to soon marry, being told by an angel she would conceive would know that the conception would be within the confines of her marriage. There is nothing in the OT, nor in any of Gabriel’s words PRIOR to her asking “how shall this be” (Luke 1:34), to make her believe the conception would not be normal in every way.

 

[Tom]

I can agree with you on the day of the Annunciation that Jesus was conceived but only ‘After’ Mary gave her consent. So when the Angel said She would conceive before that, He would obviously have meant it in the future tense and it really isn’t a huge step to say that She would have assumed it would be with Joseph first.

I’m surprised that it seems Tom is on of the few Catholics in this thread who has ever heard of this argument? That is the impression I’m getting anyways. It’s most often used as possible proof of Mary remaining ‘Ever Virgin’ to our protestant bretheran but it is by far not a new argument.

Am I not presenting this clearly? Mary could not have known the conception would have been anything but normal when she asked. So a woman who thinks her conception would be “normal” would never ask “how” she shall become pregnant “IF”. and here’s the kicker, she planned on having sex. If she didn’t plan on sex, sure, she’d ask, but if she planned on sex, no need to ask, it’s self evident.

 

[RobinK]

Oh Goodness! Are you seriously still at this Tom? Are you a theologian or a doctor of the church or something? Why are you so consumed with trying to prove that Mary never planned on having normal human relations with her normal human husband in a normal human society? The point is that it doesn’t matter what way she PLANNED on living her life. What matters the way she ACTUALLY lived her life. You can speculate all you want on the semantics of a passage in the bible that has been translated from ancient aramaic, greek or latin or whatever but the Church teaches that she is EVER VIRGIN and that’s all that matters. My advice, don’t waste your time analyzing what she said and just enjoy her for who she is.

 

[agangbern]

The betrothal was part of marriage, so Mary was considered “married” at the time. Here are several different translations. None of them have the meaning of “now” as in at that time.

NAB Luke 1: 31 Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.

New Advent Luke 1: 31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus.

DR Luke 1: 1:31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus.

NJB Luke 1: 31 Look! You are to conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus.

No. Strictly speaking, bethrothal is not part of marriage. It may be a phase leading to marriage, but it is outside marriage itself. During the bethrothal phase, Mary would not be considered as already married. So, when the angel announced to her, she was in fact single, and not married. Because of that singleness, Mary could not picture out how she would conceive that day. Hence she asked, “How could this be?”

That is why we look at other translations of the bible so that we could picture out what the passage mean. In the translations you came across, you did not find the word “now”, but that does not mean that there is no translation that has the word “now”. The following translation has it, "And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus".bsac.ac.uk/Art/S%20Nemethy/Announciation.htm

You should find a bible translation where Mary says she will not know a man. So that she would substantially say, “How could this be? I will not know a man.” That for sure would clearly indicate her express reference to her future celibate marriage.

 

[Tom]

No. Strictly speaking, bethrothal is not part of marriage. It may be a phase leading to marriage, but it is outside marriage itself. During the bethrothal phase, Mary would not be considered as already married. So, when the angel announced to her, she was in fact single, and not married. Because of that singleness, Mary could not picture out how she would conceive that day. Hence she asked, “How could this be?”

That is why we look at other translations of the bible so that we could picture out what the passage mean. In the translations you came across, you did not find the word “now”, but that does not mean that there is no translation that has the word “now”. The following translation has it, “And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus”.bsac.ac.uk/Art/S%20Nemethy/Announciation.htm

You should find a bible translation where Mary says she will not know a man. So that she would substantially say, “How could this be? I will not know a man.” That for sure would clearly indicate her express reference to her future celibate marriage.

See posts 94 & 95.

 

[Des]

Am I not presenting this clearly? Mary could not have known the conception would have been anything but normal when she asked. So a woman who thinks her conception would be “normal” would never ask “how” she shall become pregnant “IF”. and here’s the kicker, she planned on having sex. If she didn’t plan on sex, sure, she’d ask, but if she planned on sex, no need to ask, it’s self evident.

I think you misread me Tom. I’m actually for what you’re saying and likewise I heard this many, many, times before when I see Catholic/Protestant debates on Mary being ever virgin and I was just surprised the Catholics on here seem surprised by it.

 

[Tom]

I think you misread me Tom. I’m actually for what you’re saying and likewise I heard this many, many, times before when I see Catholic/Protestant debates on Mary being ever virgin and I was just surprised the Catholics on here seem surprised by it.

Yes, I understand. I was actually asking you if I just wasn’t being clear. Thanks.

 

[agangbern]

agangbern;4923864:

That is why we look at other translations of the bible so that we could picture out what the passage mean. In the translations you came across, you did not find the word "now

", but that does not mean that there is no translation that has the word “now”. The following translation has it, “And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus”.bsac.ac.uk/Art/S%20Nemethy/Announciation.htm

You should find a bible translation where Mary says she will not know a man. So that she would substantially say, “How could this be? I will not know a man.” That for sure would clearly indicate her express reference to her future celibate marriage.
See posts 94 & 95.

OK, here are posts 94 & 95:

Post 94:

The meaning of “Now” in Luke 1:31
και conjunction
kai kahee: and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words

ιδου verb - second aorist active middle - second person singular
idou id-oo’: used as imperative lo!; – behold, lo, see.

It does not connotate a time.

Post 95

To “know not man” does not restrict it to a current state.
ου particle - nominative
ou oo: no or not – + long, nay, neither, never, no (man), none, (can-)not, + nothing, + special, un(-worthy), when, + without, + yet but.

What I requested from you in my above post is clear. Just as I was able to show to you a bible passage that says, NOW, not sometime in the future, so please show me also a bible passage that says, “I will not know a man.” No need of conjugating words. Just use a bible passage. Anyway, this thread speaks of bible passages.

 

[Tom]

OK, here are posts 94 & 95:
Post 94:
Post 95
What I requested from you in my above post is clear. Just as I was able to show to you a bible passage that says, NOW, not sometime in the future, so please show me also a bible passage that says, “I will not know a man.” No need of conjugating words. Just use a bible passage. Anyway, this thread speaks of bible passages.

I answered that in post 84, post 94 & 95 are the translations. Here is post 84:

How? Because it says “[Luke 1:31] And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus.”
Now, in this context, means, as other translations say, “therefore”, not now as in this moment.
Again had she thought, now at this moment she knew she would need to fornicate outside of her marriage. She certainly did not believe she was being told to sin.

Again the “now” does not mean at that moment or any particular time, either immanent or distant time. It is an conjunction, as the translation states:

The meaning of “Now” in Luke 1:31
και conjunction
kai kahee: and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words
ιδου verb - second aorist active middle - second person singular
idou id-oo’: used as imperative lo!; – behold, lo, see.
It does not connotate a time.

You are reading it incorrectly if you think it means now at this moment. It means now, as therefore, lo, behold, see as all of the other translations say. Follow your own advice, read the other translations to see the true meaning of “now”.

please show me also a bible passage that says, “I will not know a man.”

Post 95 “To “know not man” does not restrict it to a current state.
ου particle - nominative
ou oo: no or not – + long, nay, neither, never, no (man), none, (can-)not, + nothing, + special, un(-worthy), when, + without, + yet but.
One of the meanings, and the true meaning in this case is NEVER.

Mary was referring to her future, which is when Gabriel is speaking about. For her to question the future conception with her current state of virginity is ridiculous.
Gabriel is telling her what shall happen within her marriage, she would not question her conception within her marriage because of her current state of virginity.
You’re next going to say it wasn’t within her marriage, see verse 35, my point has always been she doesn’t know anything past verse 33! There is no indication PRIOR to verse 34 that the conception would not be normal.
That’s the reason the title of this thread is Luke 1:26 - 33! She doesn’t have ANY knowledge of the things Gabriel tells her as a response to her question (after verse 33).

 

[Des]

Yes, I understand. I was actually asking you if I just wasn’t being clear. Thanks.

Yes, very.

 

[agangbern]

I answered that in post 84, post 94 & 95 are the translations. Here is post 84: Again the “now” does not mean at that moment or any particular time, either immanent or distant time. It is an conjunction, as the translation states:

The meaning of “Now” in Luke 1:31
και conjunction
kai kahee: and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words
ιδου verb - second aorist active middle - second person singular
idou id-oo’: used as imperative lo!; – behold, lo, see.
It does not connotate a time.

You are reading it incorrectly if you think it means now at this moment. It means now, as therefore, lo, behold, see as all of the other translations say. Follow your own advice, read the other translations to see the true meaning of “now”.

Post 95 “To “know not man” does not restrict it to a current state.
ου particle - nominative
ou oo: no or not – + long, nay, neither, never, no (man), none, (can-)not, + nothing, + special, un(-worthy), when, + without, + yet but.
One of the meanings, and the true meaning in this case is NEVER.

Mary was referring to her future, which is when Gabriel is speaking about. For her to question the future conception with her current state of virginity is ridiculous.
Gabriel is telling her what shall happen within her marriage, she would not question her conception within her marriage because of her current state of virginity.
You’re next going to say it wasn’t within her marriage, see verse 35, my point has always been she doesn’t know anything past verse 33! There is no indication PRIOR to verse 34 that the conception would not be normal.
That’s the reason the title of this thread is Luke 1:26 - 33! She doesn’t have ANY knowledge of the things Gabriel tells her as a response to her question (after verse 33).

What is written in that bible translation is not difficult to read. No doubt I read it correctly. Once again, here it is:

"And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus".bsac.ac.uk/Art/S%20Nemethy/Announciation.htm

You gave the word “never”. But until now, you have not shown a bible passage that uses that word to say that she “will never know a man”. That is what I am interested to see as proof that your interpretation is supported by a bible passage. On the other hand, my interpretation as “now” is supported by a** bible passage**. But yours is not. You only reached the point of saying that I read it incorrectly. But it is there, written in the bible, spelled as “n-o-w”.

 

[Tom]

What is written in that bible translation is not difficult to read. No doubt I read it correctly. Once again, here it is:

“And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus”.bsac.ac.uk/Art/S%20Nemethy/Announciation.htm

You gave the word “never”. But until now, you have not shown a bible passage that uses that word to say that she “will never know a man”. That is what I am interested to see as proof that your interpretation is supported by a bible passage. On the other hand, my interpretation as “now” is supported by a** bible passage**. But yours is not.

Hope you don’t mind if I use your reference from post #5. It’s a great reference, thanks.
scripturetext.com/luke/1-34.htm
Go to commentary:
gsb.biblecommenter.com/luke/1.htm
Geneva study bible:
“34 Then said Mary unto the angel, {e} How shall this be, seeing {f} I know not a man?
(e) The greatness of the matter causes the virgin to ask this question, not that she distrusted by any means at all, for she asks only of the manner of the conceiving, so that it is plain she believed all the rest.
(f) So speak the Hebrews, signifying by this modest kind of speech the company of man and wife together, and this is the meaning of it: how will this be, for as I will be Christ’s mother I am very sure I will not know any man: for the godly virgin had learned by the prophets that the Messiah would be born of a virgin.

 

[Tom]

Somehow, I’ve confused you. This is your quote from post #5.

Young’s Literal Translation
“And Mary said unto the messenger, ‘How shall this be, seeing a husband I do not know?’”
scripturetext.com/luke/1-34.htm
“How shall this be…” This is about the future. Therefore, when Mama Mary asked that question, she was thinking that the conception was something to happen in the future yet.
Her question reveals that She and Joseph were planning to remain not knowing each other sexually during their entire marriage. Hence, the seeming impossibility of her getting pregnant even during their marriage.

You were absolutely correct. This is about the future, not “right now”, she did think the conception was something to happen in the future, a future which held her marriage. Her question does reveal she and Joseph were planning to remain “not knowing each other sexually during their entire marriage.”
I’m sorry I’ve confused you, you had it right there!

 

[agangbern]

Somehow, I’ve confused you. This is your quote from post #5.
You were absolutely correct. This is about the future, not “right now”, she did think the conception was something to happen in the future, a future which held her marriage. Her question does reveal she and Joseph were planning to remain “not knowing each other sexually during their entire marriage.”
I’m sorry I’ve confused you, you had it right there!

Yes, it was about the future when she said, “How shall this be?”. But it was not a distant future as to refer to her celibate marriage. Yes, she had celibate marriage, but that could not be inferred as being referred to when she said, “I know not man”. If only there is a bible passage wherein she substantially says, “I will never know a man”, then I would not be discussing here further. This corrects my post wherein I made the inference to her celibate marriage.Her celibate marriage must be proved in another way.

 

[agangbern]

Geneva study bible:
“34 Then said Mary unto the angel, {e} How shall this be, seeing {f} I know not a man?
(e) The greatness of the matter causes the virgin to ask this question, not that she distrusted by any means at all, for she asks only of the manner of the conceiving, so that it is plain she believed all the rest.
(f) So speak the Hebrews, signifying by this modest kind of speech the company of man and wife together, and this is the meaning of it: how will this be, for as I will be Christ’s mother I am very sure I will not know any man: for the godly virgin had learned by the prophets that the Messiah would be born of a virgin.

"I will not know any man" That still is not a bible passage, but only part of a commentary.

 

[Tom]

"I will not know any man" That still is not a bible passage, but only part of a commentary.

o.k. let me see if I can explain. We agree Gabriel was speaking of the future. How far in the future is not known. What else was in her future? Her marriage to Joseph.
Gabriel tells her she shall conceive, when would YOU or any engaged person naturally think Gabriel was referring to?
There was no reason for Mary to even consider a conception outside of her marriage to Joseph.

Gabriel: Mary you shall conceive.
Mary: Well I hope so, after all that’s why I’m getting married!

Gabriel doesn’t even hint that the conception would not be within her marriage.

Try reading Luke 1: 26 -33 from Mary’s perspective, without the knowledge that her son would be the Son of God, and not the (biologic) son of Joseph.

 

[Tom]

"I will not know any man" That still is not a bible passage, but only part of a commentary.

Agreed. Does it make sense for her to be confused about a future conception, the timing being unknown, and her to question her present virginity.
Think, Mary next month (or some unknow time in the future) you shall conceive.
Mary’s response How shall this be since TODAY I know not man.
She was answering about her future virginity. I know not man is a translation, it can also be rendered “I am a virgin”.
“I am a virgin” is a calling.

I’m terrible on anologies!

Here goes.

A woman is told, by Gabriel, you shall fly a airplane across the Jordan river.
Makes perfect sense “if” she plans on learning to fly.
She would not say “How shall this be, I have never flown”, because she knows in her future she will learn.

However “if” she never intends to learn to fly she certainly might say “How shall this be, I have never flown”. She wouldn’t have to say, “and I never intend to learn.”

I told you I was terrible… LOL

 

[Des]

Agreed. Does it make sense for her to be confused about a future conception, the timing being unknown, and her to question her present virginity.
Think, Mary next month (or some unknown time in the future) you shall conceive.
Mary’s response How shall this be since TODAY I know not man.
She was answering about her future virginity. I know not man is a translation, it can also be rendered “I am a virgin”.
“I am a virgin” is a calling.

I’m terrible on analogies!

Here goes.

A woman is told, by Gabriel, you shall fly a airplane across the Jordan river.
Makes perfect sense “if” she plans on learning to fly.
She would not say “How shall this be, I have never flown”, because she knows in her future she will learn.

However “if” she never intends to learn to fly she certainly might say “How shall this be, I have never flown”. She wouldn’t have to say, “and I never intend to learn.”

I told you I was terrible… LOL

Actually that was pretty good tom. Or she could say something like “How shall this be done, since I can’t fly today” which likewise wouldn’t make any sense.

Also, the word ‘ου’ which they substituted with ‘not’ in the last part of that passage (since I know ‘not’ a man), can also mean ‘never’ according to the Greek translation in that link you gave out.

ου particle - nominative
ou oo: no or not – + long, nay, neither, never, no (man), none, (can-)not, + nothing, + special, un(-worthy), when, + without, + yet but.

So it could just as easily mean “since I will never know a man” just like you said and would likewise make more sense when looking at the passage as a whole.