Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[apophasis]

Good Fella:

So you believe that Mary and Joseph resumed having sexual relations after the birth of Christ?

No. That’s why I said “except the resumed part.” “Resumed” implies the starting up of a previous action.

He tells us that Joseph and Mary “refrained” from having sexual relations before the child was born.

Actually Matthew says that Joseph refrained from “knowing her” until (“up to” the point) of giving birth to her first-born.

Once the child was born they “continued” to refrain from having sexual relations.

No, Matthew says that he (lit.) “was not knowing her” until she gave birth.

He wants to assure us that the birth of Jesus was a virgin birth.

He does by stating that he “was not knowing her until she gave birth to a Son.” If he did not “know her” until the birth of Jesus, then obviously Jesus was virgin born or Mary committed adultery. It certainly wasn’t the latter.

Context is the most significant thing to look for in the scriptures where we find a joining of clauses.

I agree that context is most significant. I don’t know where you find “a joining of clauses” here.

The context in Matthew deals with a virgin bearing a child.

Absolutely. But not even a hint of perpetual virginity. It would serve no purpose once the virgin gave birth to the Child. Unless you’re now trying to exalt the virgin herself. A paradigm shift of the gospel message.

 

[Good_Fella]

No. That’s why I said “except the resumed part.” “Resumed” implies the starting up of a previous action.Actually Matthew says that Joseph refrained from “knowing her” until (“up to” the point) of giving birth to her first-born.No, Matthew says that he (lit.) “was not knowing her” until she gave birth.He does by stating that he “was not knowing her until she gave birth to a Son.” If he did not “know her” until the birth of Jesus, then obviously Jesus was virgin born or Mary committed adultery.

Using the analogy, you said “They are not smoking now, but plan to in the future” or “They were not smoking now, but planned to in the future.” If we use the past progressive tense in this construction, we are acknowledging that these smokers are going to resume smoking in the future. For smokers who haven’t smoked all their lives do not plan to smoke. (You have a way of trying to twist logic.) Using this analogy, when Gabriel offered Mary a pack of cigarettes, she was startled and asked, “How could this be? (“How can you be offering me a pack of cigarettes? You know I don’t smoke.”) “I have no relations with a man.” The word ‘until’ in Matthew 1:25 does not necessarily refer to after the fact. It can also refer to before the fact. Matthew was strictly concerned with what happened before the birth of Christ. He was not concerned with what happened after between Mary and Joseph. The perpetual virginity of Mary is explicitly clear in Luke 1:34: “I have no relations with a man.” (“I don’t smoke.” “I don’t have sex.” “And I don’t plan to, so why do you make this offer?”) If Mary had planned to have sexual relations with Joseph, she would not have asked the angel Gabriel,” How could this be.?"

We cannot possibly know for sure what Matthew actually had in mind when he used the word ‘until’ unless we refer to Luke 1:34.
Mary says, “I have no relations with a man.” She does not say, “I am not having relations with a man now.”

Pax vobiscum

Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

See, it’s the “never intended to either” that gets me. I don’t see where you get this from the text.

If Mary had intended to have sexual relations with Joseph, she wouldn’t have asked the angel Gabriel how she could possibly ever conceive a child. :newidea:

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[PC_Master]

She is also Jacob’s ladder. The link between heaven and earth–divinity and humanity.

This is yet one more analogy made that is unsubstantiated. As such, I again dismiss it outright. Either support what you’re claiming, or don’t make the claim.

This has been dealt with on pg. 3 of this thread. you are rehashing what has been dealt with

That’s an easy way to avoid answering the question.

however, all you have on your side is fallible human tradition that is really less than 500 years old. follow it if you choose.

You consider Protestant beliefs fallible (not divinely inspired) because you don’t believe God chose to act in such a way. On the other hand, I can say that your beliefs are equally based on fallible traditions. That your fallible traditions go all the way back to the fourth and fifth centuries makes no difference as to their authenticity.

I’m sure this was mentioned before in this thread but here it is again:
(from Catholic Encyclopedia)
Till she brought forth her firstborn son… From these words Helvidius and other heretics most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ; but St. Jerome shows, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future.

I agree with this bit – the word until indeed doesn’t explicitly state anything about the future. It only states a condition until a certain time. However, that isn’t to say that it doesn’t imply something. We must draw the implications for the future from other sources of knowledge. For instance, you gave the example that God said he would exist until X. Obviously we conclude that God would still exist after X, but that has nothing to do with the until statement. No, we assume that God will still exist after X because we believe he is eternal.

Likewise, with children, we say “behave until I get home”. The children should rightly assume that we don’t specifically mean that they should start misbehaving once we return, but this assumption doesn’t come from the until – instead it comes from the child’s general knowledge of right and wrong, and their knowledge of the countless times their parents have told them to behave, even while they were home.

Now, let’s look at the other side of it – if I were to say to you, “I will not have sex until I am married”, you logically draw the conclusion that I plan to have sex once I am married, do you not? This isn’t necessarily from the until statement itself, but from a general knowledge that married couples usually do have sex.

Or, if I said to you, “I will not smoke until I’m 18 years old”, there is a strong implication that I indeed plan to start smoking once I’m 18. Otherwise, why not just say “I will never smoke”? But again, this implication isn’t implicit based on the until statement itself.

Thus, an until statement, while it can be seen to imply change of action (though it in itself cannot be seen to imply no change), cannot be said to establish a change or lack of change without further information.

Actually, I have the plain, clear teachings of the Scriptures which go all the way back to the beginning of Apostolic teaching (theopneustos, in fact). And by them I can test any subsequent “tradition” that evolved within the church, past or present.

What you find absurd is not my arguments but the clear, unambiguous teachings of Scripture. And the only reason you find them absurd is because they contradict your tradition. So you jump through hoops to try to make them them conform.

Be careful when claiming your interpretation of scripture to be infallible, lest you fall into the same trap as our Roman Catholic friends often do. (To all RCs – no offense is intended, but this is truly how I see it.) To claim infallibility is to deny that you are a limited human being whose understanding of God could be incorrect.

Still, I do agree with your point – scripture does indeed extend back to the very beginnings of the church, and it’s interesting to see how much some people will try to twist words to make it fit with particular doctrines.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Either you are infallibly certain that your interpretation of the Bible is correct, or you are not. If you are infallibly certain, then you assert for yourself a personal infallibility which you deny the Pope and the Magisterium, and which we claim only for him.

There’s also the possibility of allowing the holy spirit to be the standard against which I judge my interpretation, thereby eliminating any claims of infallibility from any sinful human being.

If you are not infallibly certain that you understand the true meaning of the whole Bible then, I ask, of what use to you is the objective infallibility of the Bible, without an infallible interpreter? (Cardinal Gibbons, “The Faith of our FAthers”, 1917)

I agree, one needs a means of interpreting the will of God (not just as found in scripture), and that means is the holy spirit.

Actually, what I find absurd is that you presume to know what you are talking about, in the face of information–which includes exegsis of the verses you have cited-- which is contrary to the position you hold.

The exegesis given so far has been filled with false claims (such as that Mary took a vow of virginity under the inspiration of the holy spirit). All that the verses say for certain are the following things…

1)Mary and Joseph were betrothed (that is, a form of engagement that was very close to actually being a marriage).
2)Mary, at the time of the annunciation, said she had not yet had sex with a man.
3)Joseph was shocked by her pregnancy, obviously so because he had not yet had sex with her.
4)Joseph took Mary as his wife.
5)The gospel author makes the point to explicitly point out that Joseph did not have sex with Mary until Jesus was born. The importance of this point is that it would be assumed by the reader that Mary and Joseph would have had sex prior to this point (or else there’d be no need to make the indication in the narrative).

Except for the resumed part? So what you are saying is that every individual on earth who has refrained from smoking since the day he was born until now plans to start smoking in the future.

No, what he was saying is that the term “resumed” is improper for someone who has never done X in the past.

He tells us that Joseph and Mary “refrained” from having sexual relations before the child was born. {“He had no relations with her.”} Once the child was born they “continued” to refrain from having sexual relations. He wants to assure us that the birth of Jesus was a virgin birth. He is not concerned with the question of sexual relations in a marriage.

I agree – the author was only concerned with their sexual relations prior to Jesus birth, and makes no notes in regards to them after that point, which is why I’m totally astonished that you can at all be certain that they continued to be celibate.

The context in Matthew deals with a virgin bearing a child. Virginity is his main theme. We must understand that Jesus was not the result of normal sexual relations between a husband and wife.

Agreed. What at all does this have to do with their sexual relations after the birth?

They visit places Jesus specifically is known to have lived and worked - Bethehem, Nazareth, the Jordan, the sea of Galilee, specific sites in Jerusalem such as the Via Dolorosa, the remains of the Temple, the Mount of Olives, Calvary, Gethsemane, the Upper Room, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

And they have always considered those to be holy sites, hence churches being built over the top of just about every place connected with Him. I’m sure if they could find a way to build on water they’d do so on the sea of Galilee and in the middle of the Jordan itself!

Even today they line up to be baptised in the Jordan as Jesus was.

And you tell me they don’t consider these specific places where Our Lord WAS 2,000 years ago to be especially holy?

I’m sure they do. That doesn’t mean such places actually are holy. You see, I can idolize a piece of land, a particular location, or a particular person, without that land or person becoming actually holy.

More to the point – when Moses approached the burning bush, did God not tell him to take off his sandals specifically because he was standing on holy ground? If holiness such as that requires such treatment, then the ground where Jesus walked in Israel is not holy.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Actually he said she would conceive in her womb and then bear a son. By Mary’s response we must conclude that she understood by Gabriel’s words that the conception (not the birth) would be imminent. We know that Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but what we don’t know is when the actual marriage (the second part) was planned to occur. Obviously Mary understood this to be not before she would miraculously conceive in her womb. For this reason she responded with, “How can this be, since I know no man?”

Exactly.

The perpetual virginity of Mary is explicitly clear in Luke 1:34: “I have no relations with a man.” (“I don’t smoke.” “I don’t have sex.” “And I don’t plan to, so why do you make this offer?”) If Mary had planned to have sexual relations with Joseph, she would not have asked the angel Gabriel," How could this be.?"

Excuse me, but I can honestly say “I don’t have sex”, and I do, when asked. That does not mean that I never plan to, by any means. Your analogy is specious.

We cannot possibly know for sure what Matthew actually had in mind when he used the word ‘until’ unless we refer to Luke 1:34.
Mary says, “I have no relations with a man.” She does not say, “I am not having relations with a man now.”

The meaning is the same. Another interesting point I’ve seen recently on the subject is this…

Mary, as one who studied the scriptures and knew them well, would have quite certainly known the prophesies of the Messiah, Jesus. She would have well known that he was to be born of a virgin, and thus, when the angel told her that she was to be the mother of Jesus, the first thing that may have come to mind was “Wait a minute – Jesus is going to be born of a virgin, and now you’re telling me that I am this virgin, so how exactly is this going to happen?” This fits perfectly with the following verses, with the angel explaining exactly how the conception would happen.

Another theory is simply that, as the espoused of Joseph, one not yet married to him, Mary inquired as to the means of this conception and birth so as to regulate her own conduct accordingly. This fits in well with Mary’s response to the angel’s explanation – she wasn’t about to do something to hinder God’s plan, hence she responded by saying “let it happen as you have said”.

These explanations fit perfectly well with the knowledge of a devout Jew such as Mary.

Finally, can someone provide for me any scriptural example whatsoever that shows God stating that it’s okay for a couple to be married without sexual relations?

 

[Good_Fella]

Exactly.

Excuse me, but I can honestly say “I don’t have sex”, and I do, when asked. That does not mean that I never plan to, by any means. Your analogy is specious.

If I offered you a cigarette and you said “No, thanks. I don’t smoke” this means you never smoke and don’t plan to in the future. If you had planned to smoke all your life, which is absurd, you may have said “No thanks, I don’t smoke, but I plan to in the future” which is equally absurd. There is nothing specious in my analogy.

Mary says, " I have no relations with a man." She is speaking in the Simple Present tense: this verb tense expresses an unchanging, repeated, or reoccuring action or situation that exists only now. It can also express a broad truth of a given situation. Mary is telling the angel Gabriel that she could not ever conceive of a child because she is in a constant or perpetual state of chastity. Her condition is unchanging. Now refers to her entire life; since obviously she is not having relations with Joseph during the time of the Annunciation.

Mary does not say, “I am not having relations with a man.” She is not speaking in the Present Progressive tense: this tense describes an ongoing action that is happening at the same time the statement is made. Mary is not telling the angel Gabriel that she is abstaining from sex during her betrothal.

I’m a high school English teacher, so allow me to give you a lesson in English grammar. How does one do something and not do something at the same time unless she temporarily refrains from doing something she has been in the habit of doing.? This is a situation described by the Present Progressive tense. It is a temporary situation that could change given the circumstance. Mary speaks in the Simple Present tense, so her condition is unchangeable and constant through her entire life. There is no reason for us to suppose that she was planning to have sexual relations with Joseph, because she does not speak in the Present Continuous tense.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[LilyM]

About Mary asking that question - remember she was a betrothed woman, shortly to be married.

If someone came to me during the course of my engagement and said ‘you’re going to have a child’, the last thing I’d ask would be ‘how will it happen’! I would know - or assume - that it would be as a result of normal marital activity, as babies tend to be.

Mary knew the birds and the bees as most engaged women do, so she KNEW how babies happen.

The question only makes sense if she wasn’t planning to consummate her marriage to Joseph.

 

[HailMary]

About Mary asking that question - remember she was a betrothed woman, shortly to be married.

If someone came to me during the course of my engagement and said ‘you’re going to have a child’, the last thing I’d ask would be ‘how will it happen’! I would know - or assume - that it would be as a result of normal marital activity, as babies tend to be.

Mary knew the birds and the bees as most engaged women do, so she KNEW how babies happen.

The question only makes sense if she wasn’t planning to consummate her marriage to Joseph.

[SIGN]AMEN[/SIGN]

 

[PC_Master]

If I offered you a cigarette and you said “No, thanks. I don’t smoke” this means you never smoke and don’t plan to in the future. If you had planned to smoke all your life, which is absurd, you may have said “No thanks, I don’t smoke, but I plan to in the future” which is equally absurd. There is nothing specious in my analogy.

Actually, you’re incorrect. That I have no intent to smoke in the future is immaterial to the statement.

As I pointed out before, I’ll say again – if someone asks me “Do you have sex?”, I’d respond “No, I don’t have sex.” You cannot infer this to say anything about the future. It’s really true that I, as a single male, do not have sex. It does not mean that I don’t plan on having sex once I am married (I plan on having quite a few children, after all).

Mary says, " I have no relations with a man." She is speaking in the Simple Present tense: this verb tense expresses an unchanging, repeated, or reoccuring action or situation that exists only now. It can also express a broad truth of a given situation. Mary is telling the angel Gabriel that she could not ever conceive of a child because she is in a constant or perpetual state of chastity. Her condition is unchanging. Now refers to her entire life; since obviously she is not having relations with Joseph during the time of the Annunciation.

Admittedly, I’m not an English expert, but I do understand the language fairly well. Wikipedia helped out a bit with examples regarding the various aspects of present tense in English…
Wikipedia (Article on "present tense"):

* present simple, which is used to describe both habits and or routines (I eat breakfast every morning at 6:30. I go to work everyday), and general facts (The earth revolves around the sun);

This is the tense you’re speaking of – the present simple tense. You’ll notice that both statements are not imperatively speaking of the future. I eat breakfast every morning at 6:30. Does that mean that I will always eat breakfast at 6:30, and that I have no intent on changing this habit? Perhaps. On the other hand, my father says “I go to work every day”, just as with the example above, when he doesn’t actually go to work on Saturday or Sunday. The present simple tense does not imply a perpetual state.

I’m a high school English teacher, so allow me to give you a lesson in English grammar. How does one do something and not do something at the same time unless she temporarily refrains from doing something she has been in the habit of doing.? This is a situation described by the Present Progressive tense. It is a temporary situation that could change given the circumstance. Mary speaks in the Simple Present tense, so her condition is unchangeable and constant through her entire life. There is no reason for us to suppose that she was planning to have sexual relations with Joseph, because she does not speak in the Present Continuous tense.

First, I’d just point out that this is specious and false in terms of logic. A few years ago, I might have said, “I do not go to college”, and indeed it is the present simple tense being used there. Lo and behold, now I do go to college, as I have planned to do for many years. So, was my statement of not going to college a perpetual one? Obviously not.

To continue it further, I can say “I am [again, present simple] in college”. This does not at all mean that I will always be in college, and our common knowledge of society and how college works tells us that there will indeed come a time a which I won’t be in college.

Additionally, I feel obligated to point out that we’re actually discussing a passage in Greek here, which would require Greek grammar, not English. I could be mistaken, but the Greek Present-Active-Indicative tense (which is what the word for “have” is, in Greek) does not necessarily imply a continual state of action, although that is one possible interpretation of it in some circumstances.

 

[PC_Master]

About Mary asking that question - remember she was a betrothed woman, shortly to be married.

If someone came to me during the course of my engagement and said ‘you’re going to have a child’, the last thing I’d ask would be ‘how will it happen’! I would know - or assume - that it would be as a result of normal marital activity, as babies tend to be.

Mary knew the birds and the bees as most engaged women do, so she KNEW how babies happen.

The question only makes sense if she wasn’t planning to consummate her marriage to Joseph.

I find the previous explanation I’ve posted to be far more likely. To assume that she would have assume the birth would have come as a result of normal marital activity is to assume that she knew nothing of the prophecies of the virgin birth.

 

[HailMary]

I find the previous explanation I’ve posted to be far more likely. To assume that she would have assume the birth would have come as a result of normal marital activity is to assume that she knew nothing of the prophecies of the virgin birth.

Humility my friend: her primary virtue. It is not humble for one to think that they would *actually * be the person who would bear the God-Man.

I mean, seroiusly, look at her reaction even to the title “full of grace”:
But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be.

 

[apophasis]

Be careful when claiming your interpretation of scripture to be infallible, lest you fall into the same trap as our Roman Catholic friends often do. (To all RCs – no offense is intended, but this is truly how I see it.) To claim infallibility is to deny that you are a limited human being whose understanding of God could be incorrect.

Thanks for the warning, PC. However, you read into my post something I did not state, nor even imply, i.e., that I claimed my interpretation of Scripture to infallible. I said I have the plain and clear teachings of Scripture to test the teachings of men. I do not in any way think that one needs the power of infallibility to understand and interpret those Biblical teachings which are plain, simple and straightforward. The problem is not with those who understand them for what they literally say, but with those who distort and twist those Scriptures in order to conform them to their own personal beliefs and/or preconceived ideas.

Still, I do agree with your point – scripture does indeed extend back to the very beginnings of the church, and it’s interesting to see how much some people will try to twist words to make it fit with particular doctrines.

Which was my point exactly. And I know you’re not claiming infallibility for yourself.

 

[apophasis]

maurin:

Your dilemma is clear. The Greek compoind word used in Matthew 1:25 is heos-hou, and it does not imply a change or revbersal of starus that is spoken about in the clause that precedes it. Heos-hou is an abbreviation of the longer Greek phrase “heos hou chronou en hoi,” which means “until the time when.” The shorter version, which you referenced above is just ‘heos.’ In Greek, ‘heos’ does not imply that a condition changes in the clause following it.

Maurin, where did you go to school to learn Greek? Or were you just parroting something you read? I went back and did a little research on my own. Look at Matt. 2:9.Matt 2:9 After hearing the king, they went their way; and the star, which they had seen in the east, went on before them until it came and stood over {the place} where the Child was.In the Greek it is just heos. Yet a change took place. It went before them only until - then a change took place - it stopped.

Now look at Matt. 2:13:Matt 2:13 "Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord *appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to destroy Him."Here, too, in the Greek only the word heos is used. Yet Joseph was to take the Child and mother to Egypt and stay there only until he tells them to, then a change was to take place.

Now look at Matt 5:26 "Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent.Here it uses the Greek “heos-hau.” Clearly what’s being communicated is the person does not come out until he has paid the last cent - then a change takes place.

Whether the Greek was heos-hau or the simple heos, it still implied in the text and context that a change was to take place. It is no different in Matt. 1:25. The implication there being that he kept her a virgin “until the time” when she gave birth - then a change took place. The assertion that neither Matthew or the Greek used implied change is absurd. It’s just another case of interpretation manipulation, trying to trump Scripture with tradition.

 

[Good_Fella]

Actually, you’re incorrect. That I have no intent to smoke in the future is immaterial to the statement.

As I pointed out before, I’ll say again – if someone asks me “Do you have sex?”, I’d respond “No, I don’t have sex.” You cannot infer this to say anything about the future. It’s really true that I, as a single male, do not have sex. It does not mean that I don’t plan on having sex once I am married (I plan on having quite a few children, after all).

Admittedly, I’m not an English expert, but I do understand the language fairly well. Wikipedia helped out a bit with examples regarding the various aspects of present tense in English…

This is the tense you’re speaking of – the present simple tense. You’ll notice that both statements are not imperatively speaking of the future. I eat breakfast every morning at 6:30. Does that mean that I will always eat breakfast at 6:30, and that I have no intent on changing this habit? Perhaps. On the other hand, my father says “I go to work every day”, just as with the example above, when he doesn’t actually go to work on Saturday or Sunday. The present simple tense does not imply a perpetual state.

First, I’d just point out that this is specious and false in terms of logic. A few years ago, I might have said, “I do not go to college”, and indeed it is the present simple tense being used there. Lo and behold, now I do go to college, as I have planned to do for many years. So, was my statement of not going to college a perpetual one? Obviously not.

To continue it further, I can say “I am [again, present simple] in college”. This does not at all mean that I will always be in college, and our common knowledge of society and how college works tells us that there will indeed come a time a which I won’t be in college.

If you go back to my first post #18 you will see that I quoted the mariologist Rene Laurentine who said we must recognize Mary’s statement “I don’t know (any man)” as having to do with a condition rather than an instant in time. She is telling the angel Gabriel “I never have sex” and “I’m not having sex now” so “How can I possibly ever conceive and give birth to a child.” In her own words: “How can this be?” It is obvious, but not imperative, that she doesn’t plan to have sexual relations and bear children. For she has already made a vow of virginity to God. Your objections are drawn from taking Mary’s statement as having to do with an instant in time. It appears by your above examples you were distracted by Apophasis’ citation of Matthew 1:25 which uses the present tense verb “to know” as having to do with an instant in time: before the birth of Jesus. I have been referring to the essential condition or state of a person, not merely her actions or inactions at a given period in time. We are arguing on different wavelengths. If I were to recognize the present tense verb “to know” as having to do with an instant in time, then I would agree with what you have said. In Luke 1:34, Mary is talking about her whole self, not merely an external activity or inactivity. In effect she is saying: “I am ( present tense) a virgin; this is someone who I am. My virginity is not merely something that I do or refrain from doing in time.” The state of virginity is never having sexual relations. The words of the angel Gabriel troubled her, for they contradicted who she saw she was. At the time of the Annunciation, she had no intention of ever having sexual relations with her husband.

Mary did not answer any yes or no question pertaining to the activity or inactivity of sexual relations in time. Luke 1:34 is not concerned with an instant in time. But if we were to ask St. Paul, “Do you have sexual relations?”, and he replied, “No, I don’t have sex,” it would mean he never has sex and doesn’t intend on having it. Whether he kept his vow of celibacy, is another matter. But the scriptures tell us that he lived in a state of celibacy for the sake of the kingdom. Paul remained celibate for his entire life. We cannot ignore a person’s intentions when defining his state of existence. A person who never smokes intends not to smoke as long as he is not smoking. A virgin or celibate abstains from sex as long as she or he intends never to have sex. Both Mary and Paul intended never to have sexual relations with a spouse. Virginity is not a daily routine or habit: it’s a constant state of existence. Daily routines and habits can be interrupted from time to time, but they relatively subsist, or else they would no longer be daily routines and habits. Idiomatic expressions are irrelevant: “going to work everyday.” What you also say about going to college or being in college recognizes the present tense verb as having to do with instants in time. Luke 1:34 recognizes the present tense verb as having to do with a person’s condition.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[apophasis]

Good Fella:

If you go back to my first post #18 you will see that I quoted the mariologist Rene Laurentine who said we must recognize Mary’s statement “I don’t know (any man)” as having to do with a condition rather than an instant in time.

It’s obviously both, GF. She is stating her present state of virginity: “How shall this be since I know no man.”

She is telling the angel Gabriel “I never have sex” and “I’m not having sex now” so “How can I possibly ever conceive and give birth to a child.”

No. Stick with your previous thought. She is stating her present condition - a virgin. It states nothing about her future. “How can this be since I (presently) know no man.” The implication is that she has known no man in the past either. She is truly a virgin.

“How can this be?” It is obvious, but not imperative, that she doesn’t plan to have sexual relations and bear children.

Such a conclusion, based on the context, is neither obvious nor imperative.

For she has already made a vow of virginity to God.

Proof???

We are arguing on different wavelengths.

Actually, we’re arguing on two different “realities:” Scripture vs. tradition.

In Luke 1:34, Mary is talking about her whole self, not merely an external activity or inactivity.

She was expressing her present state of virginity.

The state of virginity is never having sexual relations.

No. The state of virginity is never having had sexual relations to the present moment. A vow of virginity states the personal intention of never having a sexual relationship. However you must prove that Mary actually imposed that vow upon herself. And, by the way, since there is absolutely no proof that Joseph had been previously married, then you must also prove that Joseph took the same vow. And so now you have a situation where two people, vowed to remain virgins, are engaged and plan to marry. A comical situation, indeed. And I suppose someone will come along and assert that such a scenario was quite common in the middle east at that time.

Paul, “Do you have sexual relations?”, and he replied, “No, I don’t have sex,” it would mean he never has sex and doesn’t intend on having it.

This is an erroneous statement. Flawed logic. I think PC has already pointed that out.

Whether he kept his vow of celibacy, is another matter.

There’s a difference between one remaining celibate while not married and one taking a vow of celibacy.

But the scriptures tell us that he lived in a state of celibacy for the sake of the kingdom. Paul remained celibate for his entire life.

Proof??? Scripture implies that at the time Paul was called into ministry he was not married - hence celibate. But nowhere in Scripture does it imply that he was celibate his entire life. He was a Pharisee and traditionally one of the requirements to be a member of that sect was marriage. It is possible Paul could have been a widower. Or even possibly his wife left him. The point is we just don’t know. You cannot just assert that he was celibate his entire life. Scripture is silent.

Both Mary and Paul intended never to have sexual relations with a spouse.

Proof??? It is far easier to say that one who vows to a life of celibacy never intends to marry. Yet Mary was betrothed to Joseph. Yes, you truly are arguing from a different reality.

 

[PC_Master]

If you go back to my first post #18 you will see that I quoted the mariologist Rene Laurentine who said we must recognize Mary’s statement “I don’t know (any man)” as having to do with a condition rather than an instant in time.

So, I’m just curious – how many times are you going to repeat the same, already disproved, ideas before you actually respond to my disproof of it? Do you somehow think that making the same false assertions repeatedly is actually helping the conversation?

Second, and more interestingly, why does the statement of a Mariologist actually lend credence to a point when it’s not based on grammar or any substantial logic?

Anywho, as I’ve already thoroughly disproved this point, I’ll just provide one more example, given to me by another individual – This individual has a friend named Jeff. I can honestly say “I don’t know Jeff very well.” Does that mean that I will never know Jeff very well? Nope. Does it mean that I don’t intend to get to know Jeff very well? Also a firm “no”. In fact, it is indeed my intention to get to know Jeff very well – the fact that I do not know him very well currently does not change this. Further, while you will surely argue that the proper way to say this is “I do not know Jeff very well currently”, I reject this notion, because all you’re doing is saying the more proper form is to make an implication about the future. Since the form I choose to use, and Mary chose to use, lacks any indication about the future, and there was a possible form that would give such indication, you assume the negative, which is an argument from silence. This is, as we all know, a logical fallacy, and quite specious.

For she has already made a vow of virginity to God.

Now see, this is what I’m talking about. You have nothing except church tradition which says this was the case. You have no scripture or anything else.

It appears by your above examples you were distracted by Apophasis’ citation of Matthew 1:25 which uses the present tense verb “to know” as having to do with an instant in time: before the birth of Jesus.

This is how the Greek present tense of verbs works, as far as I know. It references an instant of time or condition that is accurate n the present time. For speaking of the future, you need a future tense. It’s that simple.

Whether or not the condition remains accurate in the future requires (name removed by moderator)ut of more information, as the present tense simply doesn’t tell us anything about the future.

In Luke 1:34, Mary is talking about her whole self, not merely an external activity or inactivity. In effect she is saying: “I am ( present tense) a virgin; this is someone who I am. My virginity is not merely something that I do or refrain from doing in time.” The state of virginity is never having sexual relations.

The referent of a predicate (that is, whether the predicate is referring to a person or an attribute) has nothing to do with the tense of the verb, as any English teacher should know (I have checked several college-level writing and grammar guides on this, by the way). Please do not introduce such trickery and sophistry here. It’s just dishonest.

But if we were to ask St. Paul, “Do you have sexual relations?”, and he replied, “No, I don’t have sex,” it would mean he never has sex and doesn’t intend on having it.

The only reason we can infer this meaning is because he specifically wrote that he felt it better to remain celibate, as he currently was at the time of his writing. That’s (name removed by moderator)utting extra information to reach a conclusion. In the case of Mary, we don’t have such extra information.

Whether he kept his vow of celibacy, is another matter.

By this argument, you cannot even prove that Paul remained celibate throughout his life, even though scripture clearly implies that to be his intent. And yet you accept as fact that Mary remained celibate, when there’s not even such an implication as we have for Paul?

Luke 1:34 recognizes the present tense verb as having to do with a person’s condition.

Proof, please – not just assertions of fact that don’t match reality.

And, by the way, since there is absolutely no proof that Joseph had been previously married, then you must also prove that Joseph took the same vow.

A very interesting point I had not yet considered.

(Honestly, I expect this post to receive a reply stating “I’ve already explained the facts to you a bunch of times now”, instead of answering the arguments raised and supplying some evidence to support the crazy assertions given thus far. If that is the case, this debate is pretty well over, because Good Fella and others wouldn’t respond in a way which allows the conversation to continue.)*

 

[LilyM]

Anywho, as I’ve already thoroughly disproved this point, I’ll just provide one more example, given to me by another individual – This individual has a friend named Jeff. I can honestly say “I don’t know Jeff very well.” Does that mean that I will never know Jeff very well? Nope. Does it mean that I don’t intend to get to know Jeff very well? Also a firm “no”.

Not a good enough analogy. A more correct analogy here would be if someone said ‘you’re going to get a present from Jeff’ and you said ‘Jeff? Yeah, I know and he knows that there’s that party happening on Friday where both he and I will be, but how on earth am I possibly going to be getting any present from him?’.

From the above it can be deduced that you intend to actually avoid Jeff at that party, or that you know Jeff actually intends to avoid you. Since otherwise the how of the matter should be utterly obvious to you - namely that Jeff will give you the present at the party.

The only way your comment really makes sense is if you know you won’t bump into him there. The only way you won’t bump into him is if you consciously avoid him or he consciously avoids you.

Mary KNEW she was going to shortly be married, she KNEW that in the normal course of events sex and babies follow upon marriage. She simply wouldn’t have asked the question of how it would happen unless she and/or Joseph were actually intending on avoiding sex and babies.

 

[PC_Master]

I was right – a restatement of the same tired points without substantial response to my statements.

Not a good enough analogy. A more correct analogy here would be if someone said ‘you’re going to get a present from Jeff’ and you said ‘Jeff? Yeah, I know and he knows that there’s that party happening on Friday where both he and I will be, but how on earth am I possibly going to be getting any present from him?’.

From the above it can be deduced that you intend to actually avoid Jeff at that party, or that you know Jeff actually intends to avoid you. Since otherwise the how of the matter should be utterly obvious to you - namely that Jeff will give you the present at the party.

The only way your comment really makes sense is if you know you won’t bump into him there. The only way you won’t bump into him is if you consciously avoid him or he consciously avoids you.

Or, the question could simply arise because I don’t know Jeff well, and he doesn’t know me well – thus, it seems out of the ordinary at this moment in time (that is, currently) for him to give me a present. While I know that it’s not out of the ordinary for friends to give presents to one another, I’m not his friend currently. This doesn’t mean that I don’t intend to become such, and at that time, it would be completely normal to exchange presents. Likewise, with Mary, in the future, once she’s married (which could possibly have been a year or more in the future – we don’t really know), having children would not be out of the ordinary. What was out of the ordinary was the timing! She wasn’t married yet, and the angel’s here announcing “Okay, you are going to get pregnant.” (Remember, her cousin had just become pregnant shortly after an announcement by an angel, so Mary would figure this will be happening in short order.)

You’re simply stretching logic to fit a theory that has no basis in fact.

Let’s make this simple – provide for me some historical proof that shows it to have been normal in Jewish culture for two people to become married while intending to remain celibate during the marriage. Next, show me that such a union was not only common, but was condoned by God (for men did all sorts of things that were ungodly in that time – such as selling in the temple).

Then, show me that such a thing was common for a man such as Joseph, having had a previous marriage and children.

Thus far, these critical pieces of the puzzle have been missing. You suppose (with lack of any evidence) that Mary and Joseph both intended to remain celibate, and that Joseph was a widower (and had since made this decision to become celibate). Yet, you haven’t established anything to say that this was at all common or regular. Thus, I conclude that it’s a highly-unlikely set of circumstances which would have been laughable in Jewish culture, and certainly not God-honoring.

For that matter, even Paul’s writings, while they encourage celibacy for the sake of ministry, do not encourage celibacy in marriage. In fact, they do the opposite, saying that once married, both husband and wife should give to each other what is due them as a spouse.

A celibate Mary and Joseph simply does not fit, either with culture, history, or scripture. It does fit as an incorporation of paganism. Mithraist temple priestesses would indeed, from my understanding, have celibate marriages. I’ll try to find some credible sources for that claim.

 

[apophasis]

LilyM:

Mary KNEW she was going to shortly be married

Based on what evidence? There’s nothing in the account that tells us when the marriage was to take place. Only that she was already betrothed.

she KNEW that in the normal course of events sex and babies follow upon marriage.

Yes. And that’s the mind-set of most couples who get engaged to be married.

She simply wouldn’t have asked the question of how it would happen unless she and/or Joseph were actually intending on avoiding sex and babies.

Which would be diametrically opposed to what you just said she KNEW to be the “normal course of events” upon marriage.

Or closer to reality and normality would be that Mary clearly and correctly understood the angel’s words about the conception to be imminent and outside the range of her future marriage with Joseph. So being the pious, God-fearing, devout Jewish woman she was, her response would naturally be one of questioning: “How shall this be since I know no man” (I’m a virgin)?. And when she was told how, and that “nothing will be impossible with God,” she submitted to God’s will.

And the fact that God chose a woman already engaged to be married to birth the long awaited Messiah, gives us the insight that God desired the Son to be born into a normal, Jewish family, including siblings. The Son incarnate would experience the first 30 years of the humility of His humanity through the cognitive operation of family life. Scripture testifies to it.

After all, it wasn’t prophesied that the Messiah would simply descend from heaven to this earth, but that He would be born into it. He was “king of the Jews” according to birth (Matt. 2:2; Jn. 18:37), the rightful Heir to the throne of David (Lk. 1:32-33). So the ONLY thing extraordinary about that family of the tribe of Judah was Mary’s first-born Son. The way God intended it to be.