Is it being expressed in Matt. 1:25 that after the birth of her first-born son Mary died? She was childless until her first-born Son and then she died?
Apo, do you actually believe that Mary told the angel Gabriel that up to the time of the Annunciation she had never had sexual relations with her husband or that she was not having sexual relations with him at the present time? That’s what you’re saying. Luke was aware that Mary was a virgin at the time of the Annunciation. So how can you suggest that Mary told the angel she never had sex or was not having sexual relations with her husband? You are the one who is reading his own personal belief into the text.
Whether Mary actually was a temple virgin is irrelevant. The fact remains she had made a vow of virginity before the angel Gabriel appeared to her. Luke 1:34 makes it clear : “How shall it be, seeing I know not a man?” She does not say to the angel “I have never had sex before” nor “I am not having sex now, although I might.” Luke is aware that Mary had never had sex before and that she was not having sex with Joseph at the time, so his use of the present tense verb signifies a condition, not an instant of time. Mary expected the Messiah to have a father, as all Jews did, so she asked the angel “How shall this be?” She had no intention of having sex with her husband at any point in time. Please put your prejudices aside and start to think a little more clearly about what I have written. And let it rest. I’m tired of your quibbling, which I’ll ignore from now on. You are here just to contest the truth in spite of what is obvious.
Brilliant reference. Thank you repo.
Of course! It’s right there in the text.
Because it’s right there in the text. "How can this be since I know no man." Translated: "I am a virgin." There’s nothing difficult about it, GF.
That’s correct.
My Bible does not include this phrase. I checked ALL Bible’s on my shelf and none include that phrase. Nor do my Interlinear Greek-English New Testaments. What Bible are you using that includes that phrase in the text?
My Bible does not include this commentary by Luke.
My Bible only reveals that she IS a virgin. It must be only your Bible that Mary says she took a “vow of virginity.”
Well, as I said, Luke’s account in my Bible (or any Bible I’ve ever seen) adds to Mary’s words that she took a “vow of virginity.”
Another Marian concept not found in Scripture. But you and I have been through this already.
That’s a good one. From where did you get that bit of info.? Nevertheless, if you read the Gospel accounts of Jesus, you’ll see He didn’t think much of any of their man-made traditions or pharisaic idiosyncrasies. Personally, I don’t think He cares too much about any of the extra-biblical traditions in Christianity today.
I’m not the one inserting my own phrases or putting words in Mary’s mouth.
That because you won’t let it.
what? that’s not the point. you said using heos means the state changes after the subsequently mentioned event occurs. joseph did not know her UNTIL she gave birth to jesus. therefore according to you, she gave birth to jesus and that NECESSITATED them getting freaky. using that same logic, when the same word, heos (until) is used in 2 samuel you would interpret it to say “michal did not have any children UNTIL she died.” because they use until, that means after she died she DID have children.
No, but the claim has been raised in this thread. Whatever the reason for the supposed vow of virginity, there’s no substantiation of any such theories. It’s an argument from complete silence – not even a common practice can be established to back it up.
I see – and what part of the gospel says “And the angel said to Joseph, And thou shalt never know thy wife, for she is the ark of the new covenant” ? Or, where is it written that Joseph actually changed his mind about ever having sex with his wife? Heck, even a non-canonical document from somewhere within a couple of centuries of Jesus’ death which actually says this would be helpful here. Instead we see nothing (that I’m aware of) before the fourth century.
I agree, but your fellow Roman Catholic posters do not – they seem to think that such virgins often wed themselves to a protector. Either way, that she was married to Joseph is not in dispute.
It’s a fine bit of rhetoric, but it is simply committing the fallacy of presupposition, and as such, is rather useless to the discussion. Also, whether or not she had other children is immaterial to whether she remained a virgin or not. One can have sex without having children.
Quotes, please? Also, note that Jerome is a fourth century figure, and it’s sad to see that there are no sources of this ideology prior to that time period…at least that I’ve seen.
The word “until”, as with most conditional statements, is often used simply to clarify a misconception, as I previously posted in regards to this verse.
So the verse says that Mary remained a virgin until Jesus’ birth. But it doesn’t say anything about what happened after. So, we must (name removed by moderator)ut more information, such as the common knowledge that something like 99% (probably more, but I’m just guessing here) of married couples had sex at some point after they were married.
Call me confused, but I don’t see where you’re going here. We all seem to agree…
Really? Are you saying the text doesn’t say that Mary was a virgin up until the time of Jesus’ birth? Are you saying there’s text that proves Mary never had sex after that (no, fallacies based on a mistaken understanding of “present tense” in English don’t count – especially since Greek is an entirely different beast, to my knowledge)?
Please note the bolded text above. This does not appear anywhere in scripture (or early church history). Such fallacious interpolation as this is deceptive and dishonest, and perpetuating it over and over again is only moreso.
Even the RCC doesn’t officially teach that she took a vow such as you claim. Thus, you can’t authoritatively say that Mary had no intent to have sex with her husband.
It’s a shame it took them over 300 years to “recognize” this.
Again, a false understanding of present tense. It simply is not, and cannot be understood to be, referring to the future.
Ah, but it would if you’d actually offer some real and logical support for your position, instead of false assertions that aren’t at all supported by the text.
Chapter and verse for where it says “And Mary took a vow of virginity for the Lord”, please.
And neither does it say “I am not ever going to have sex”. That’s what you call future tense, not present tense. Now, if you’d care to cite a scholarly source which says present tense verbs can necessitate future circumstances, particularly in Koine Greek, I’d love to see it.
Very true! Up to, and including this point in time, Mary was in the condition of being a virgin. Hence Luke wrote this down. That it is a condition at the present does not mean that it will continue to be a condition.
I take it you were raised in the RCC? Honestly, of several devout RCC friends I’ve contacted regarding this issue, none of them agree with your claim. I’m going to try to get them to contact their priests as well.
Please return to my previous reply, and you will notice that I pointed out that Luke 1:34 must be taken in context with Luke I:28: “Hail, full of grace”. You presume to arbitrarily use the simple present tense verb to signify an instant of time to accord with your personal beliefs and human traditions (modern Fundamentalism). But by imposing your understanding of the author’s intention, you have him contradict himself. You have said above that the clause “seeing I know not man” signifies that Mary “had never had sex until the present moment” nor “is she having sexual relations with Joseph at the present moment.” Luke could not possibly be using the present tense verb as signifying an instant in time without contradicting himself. He first says that Mary is “full of grace”, so he could not have said afterwards “she had never had sex until now” nor “she is not having sex at the present moment”. If Mary had had sexual relations before the Annunciation, and if she were having sex during the time of Gabriel’s visit, then obviously she could not be in a state of grace, could she? She would have been in a state of sin by having had sexual relations before the consummation of her marriage. But Luke tells us otherwise. Mary was in a state of grace when the angel appeared to her. So your arbitrary use of the verb contradicts the author’s intention of telling us that Mary was a virgin by the time of the Annunciation and she remained a virgin. He need not literally write in print what he has in mind. His use of the verb as signifying a condition makes it clear that Mary had no intention of having sexual relations with Joseph. If this isn’t clear enough for you, then I would have to question your state of mind (denial) or your abilty to comprehend what you read. You are wrong in your assertions. Your Bible commentary is a distortion of the actual reading of the text intended by Luke.
So basically what you believe is that Jesus prayed to the Father, and the Father did answered Him by saying “no way Son!”
No. In 2 Sam. I would conclude, based on the context, that “until she died” meant she never had children. I asked several people, randomly, and they all agreed. NOT ONE concluded the sentence communicated that she had children after death. Nor even considered that it meant that. Why? Surprise! Dead people don’t bear children.
Where we don’t agree is how Luke signifies the present tense verb. You believe it signifies an instant of time, therefore there can be a future change of condition. I assert that Luke signifies the verb as a condition in itself, therefore there cannot be a change of condition in the future. Both you and Apo have taken the verb to signify an instant of time and out of context by implying Mary had never had sex before the Annunciation, she wasn’t having sex at the time of the Annunciation, and she may have had (actually you claim did have) sex after the Annunciation. If Luke had used the verb “to know” as signifying an instant in time, he would have contradicted himself. In Luke 1:28 he writes “Hail, full of grace”. This declaration must be taken into account when signifying the clause “seeing I know not man”. Please see my reply #170 to Apophasis to see what I mean by having a contradiction. You are just engaging in pseudo-reasoning by quibbling about the arbitrary usage of English verb tenses. Language must be put into context. You take Luke out of context because you refuse to accept the truth as infallibly taught by the Apostolic Church. And I expect more quibbling on your part.
so in other words in spanish it would be the difference between “esta” and “es” the latter being a permanent trait, the former being more open to change. it sounds like you’re just presupposing perpetual virginity there, but i still see your point. i suppose it’s possible the apostles thought it to be common sense that she was always a virgin if that’s the case … doesn’t do much for argument’s sake though.Where we don’t agree is how Luke signifies the present tense verb. You believe it signifies an instant of time, therefore there can be a future change of condition. I assert that Luke signifies the verb as a condition in itself, therefore there cannot be a change of condition in the future. Both you and Apo have taken the verb to signify an instant of time and out of context by implying Mary had never had sex before the Annunciation, she wasn’t having sex at the time of the Annunciation, and she may have had (actually you claim did have) sex after the Annunciation. If Luke had used the verb “to know” as signifying an instant in time, he would have contradicted himself. In Luke 1:28 he writes “Hail, full of grace”. This declaration must be taken into account when signifying the clause “seeing I know not man”. Please see my reply #170 to Apophasis to see what I mean by having a contradiction. You are just engaging in pseudo-reasoning by quibbling about the arbitrary usage of English verb tenses. Language must be put into context. You take Luke out of context because you refuse to accept the truth as infallibly taught by the Apostolic Church. And I expect more quibbling on your part.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
The verb to be “es” in Spanish can be signified as an instant in time or as a permanent condition. It’s a question of what context the author is writing in. Luke 1:34 (“How shall it be, seeing I know not man?”) must be put in context with Luke 1:28 (“Hail full of grace.”) or we risk having the author contradict himself. By signifying the present tense verb as having to do with an instant in time, the author would suggest the possibilty that Mary had the potential to be sinful by having sexual relations before the consummation of her marriage. Luke 1:28 tells us that Mary was sinless: “Chaire kecharitomene.” So how could it now be in 1:34 that Mary still could have sinned? He is using the verb “to know” to indicate a permanent condition. I am not presupposing anything. The author’s meaning is clear by putting Mary’s words in context with Gabriel’s greeting. He is using the verb as having to do with a permanent condition as opposed to an instant in time. In Spanish I can say "I am (esta) cold. And I can say I am (es) an American. But if I migrate to Spain and change my citizenship, then I can no longer say "I am (es) an American. Now I can say "I am (es) Spanish until I decide to change homelands again.
Hmm. That’s interesting, because the Holy Spirit tells me you’re wrong about the Mary’s perpetual virginity. I wonder why He’s telling you one thing and me another.
And the root of my problem is what? That I have the wrong Bible? I can read? I don’t put words into Mary’s mouth? I allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves? What?