Mary's virginity ?

[adrift]

Not my understanding based on my readings and study, but frankly not an important point to this conversation.

I am assuming you mean what was done during the betrothal not the betrothal itself.

Odd, true. Of course there was no stenographer there, and we don’t know how Luke came to learn of the exchange, so I would not put too much into the exact word choice.

If you can’t put too much into the word choice than you can’t rely on any scripture.

Still, the actual text if very far from establishing that Mary was pledged to be ever virgin. It would not be inconsistent, but it doesn’t say that. And if the point was to communicate that fact, why doesn’t it say that?

Again, the doctrine is not found in Scripture. That does not necessarily mean it is wrong - many Catholic doctrines are not found in Scripture. Catholics are not sola scriptura.

Again it is hinted at. Your right we believe Scripture came from the Church not the Church came from Scripture. One thing I believe it is not a good argument to ask why the writer didn’t say such and such.

 

[TMC]

I am assuming you mean what was done during the betrothal not the betrothal itself.

If you can’t put too much into the word choice than you can’t rely on any scripture.

Again it is hinted at. Your right we believe Scripture came from the Church not the Church came from Scripture. One thing I believe it is not a good argument to ask why the writer didn’t say such and such.

I disagree on word choice. Here we have a highly stylized exchange loaded with symbolism which is recorded in Greek. The exchange almost certainly happened in Aramaic, a language which Luke almost certainly did not speak. Because no other evangelist records this exchange, we only have the one version to go by. So to take those specific words, and layer so much additional non-textual meaning into them is more than the text can bear, at least in my view.

 

[adrift]

I disagree on word choice. Here we have a highly stylized exchange loaded with symbolism which is recorded in Greek. The exchange almost certainly happened in Aramaic, a language which Luke almost certainly did not speak. Because no other evangelist records this exchange, we only have the one version to go by. So to take those specific words, and layer so much additional non-textual meaning into them is more than the text can bear, at least in my view.

You make some good points. I hadn’t considered the language that was spoken. However, as you pointed out Luke learned about it from somewhere the only source had to have been from Mary. Either she told him directly or indirectly. If she told him directly they were speaking the same language. If it was conveyed through a third person, they would still have to understand the language Mary spoke. The objection you raise is nullified by either scenario. I trust the scripture. Mary did ask how? That question makes no sense outside of the traditional belief that she had made a vow of virginity.

 

[TMC]

You make some good points. I hadn’t considered the language that was spoken. However, as you pointed out Luke learned about it from somewhere the only source had to have been from Mary. Either she told him directly or indirectly. If she told him directly they were speaking the same language. If it was conveyed through a third person, they would still have to understand the language Mary spoke. The objection you raise is nullified by either scenario. I trust the scripture. Mary did ask how? That question makes no sense outside of the traditional belief that she had made a vow of virginity.

I have no reason to believe that Luke got that information directly from Mary. He certainly gives no indication that he did.

My position is not about not trusting scripture. Its about not reading into the text more than the text will bear.

 

[adrift]

I have no reason to believe that Luke got that information directly from Mary. He certainly gives no indication that he did.

My position is not about not trusting scripture. Its about not reading into the text more than the text will bear.

Did Luke make it up then? The only one present was Mary. It had to have come from Mary. Reading into the text? It is no more reading into the text than stating that Mary would not be speaking Greek. The text states that she asks the angel how the same text states she was in the first part of marriage. It seems to me that to say that she is merely asking how she is going to have a baby because she does not have sex is ignoring what the text is stating. The question is never explained but merely ignored because it doesn’t fit into the opinion there is nothing in scripture that supports Mary as an ever virgin. If it admitted that this question is not about how she will get pregnant but her questioning if she is released from her vow, then those who deny her being ever virgin will be forced to admit they are wrong.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

You are levering a lot of meaning into words that Mary did not actually speak - unless you think that Mary spoke Greek to the angel.

I am reading exactly what the Gospel writer wrote. No more, no less.
Are you claiming that the Gospel writer, inspired by the Holy Spirit, did not accurately record in Greek the meaning of what Mary said?

You are also asking for proof of a change away from a condition that is not really found in the text.

It is found in the text. Literally: How can this be since I continuously don’t know a man.

Again, I think that the passage in Luke allows for perpetual virginity but does not mandate it. I think most biblical scholars agree with that (not that that is conclusive, either).

The text does not prove perpetual virginity in an absolute sense. It proves she was on the course of perpetual virginity at that time.

Mary clearly did not understand that she was going to have sexual relations with a man at any time in the foreseeable future. The reason WHY is the only thing unknown.

If the words are so clear and plain, why is it that the Church teaches that perpetual virginity comes from the Sacred Tradition? And why is it that those that reject Sacred Tradition also tend to reject perpetual virginity?

Because the perpetual virginity has aspects which are not explained in scripture.

For example, Mary is said to have given birth (brought forth) a child.

Therefore, many believe that her vaginal opening had a man pass through it in natural childbirth. So much for virginity… However, the Tradition of the church is that Mary retains her virginity “even in the act of giving birth.” See catechism of the Catholic Church number 499.

That is an aspect of her perpetual virginity which can not be found in scripture at all.
Therefore, it must be Tradition.

But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t both scripture AND tradition regarding the perpetual Virginity of Mary. It simply means that some of the Tradition is not found directly in the Gospels.

My thesis is that the Catholic Tradition (and traditions) are closer to scripture than the Protestant traditions/fabrications that arose recently (especially many years after the reformation).

The Catholic position is supported better by scripture than the Protestant ones are.
I am not claiming the Catholic position is completely proved in the scriptures.
But there is no credible evidence of contradiction against the Catholic position, whereas there is evidence against many modern protestant conceptions.

Notice carefully: I have not used the traditions about Mary’s consecration as a virgin in the discussion. I left the reason she made the statement unspecified. but covered the issues of oaths because of her age.

Consider: hypothetically, Joseph being impotent, or having been castrated could also explain what she said; I am setting aside the information found in the protoevangelum of James, but likewise I am going to insist that there is no reason to suppose the Protestant tradition is true that Joseph was a virulent male who couldn’t have held his peace! There’s nothing credible about that in scripture AT ALL.

 

[adrift]

I am reading exactly what the Gospel writer wrote. No more, no less.
Are you claiming that the Gospel writer, inspired by the Holy Spirit, did not accurately record in Greek the meaning of what Mary said?

It is found in the text. Literally: How can this be since I continuously don’t know a man.

The text does not prove perpetual virginity in an absolute sense. It proves she was on the course of perpetual virginity at that time.

Mary clearly did not understand that she was going to have sexual relations with a man at any time in the foreseeable future. The reason WHY is the only thing unknown.

Because the perpetual virginity has aspects which are not explained in scripture.

For example, Mary is said to have given birth (brought forth) a child.

Therefore, many believe that her vaginal opening had a man pass through it in natural childbirth. So much for virginity… However, the Tradition of the church is that Mary retains her virginity “even in the act of giving birth.” See catechism of the Catholic Church number 499.

That is an aspect of her perpetual virginity which can not be found in scripture at all.
Therefore, it must be Tradition.

But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t both scripture AND tradition regarding the perpetual Virginity of Mary. It simply means that some of the Tradition is not found directly in the Gospels.

My thesis is that the Catholic Tradition (and traditions) are closer to scripture than the Protestant traditions/fabrications that arose recently (especially many years after the reformation).

The Catholic position is supported better by scripture than the Protestant ones are.
I am not claiming the Catholic position is completely proved in the scriptures.
But there is no credible evidence of contradiction against the Catholic position, whereas there is evidence against many modern protestant conceptions.

Notice carefully: I have not used the traditions about Mary’s consecration as a virgin in the discussion. I left the reason she made the statement unspecified. but covered the issues of oaths because of her age.

Consider: hypothetically, Joseph being impotent, or having been castrated could also explain what she said; I am setting aside the information found in the protoevangelum of James, but likewise I am going to insist that there is no reason to suppose the Protestant tradition is true that Joseph was a virulent male who couldn’t have held his peace! There’s nothing credible about that in scripture AT ALL.

I wish I could delete my response in favor of yours:thumbsup:

 

[prodromos]

It isn’t just the exchange between Mary and the archangel in Luke, it is also the fact that Jesus’ brothers do not behave towards him as younger brothers to the eldest but rather the opposite, and finally Christ placing His mother in the care of His nephew John the Evangelist. If Jesus was the first of several children of Mary then she would have been automatically in their care at Jesus’ death. We know that after Christ’s resurrection and ascension they were all believers, so placing her in John’s care would be completely inexplicable. However, as is taught by ALL the ancient Churches, whether Assyrian or Coptic or Eastern Orthodox or Catholic, Mary had no more children after the birth or Christ. Her womb contained God for nine months. What pious man would ever consider shooting his sperm into such a hallowed chamber, which Christ had made His throne for the good part of a year? Merely grasping the Ark resulted in one man being struck down, and his intentions were pious. Do you honestly think a man like Joseph would treat Mary’s womb as common ground for him to till after His creator had been there before him? I don’t, but then we Orthodox Christians have always maintained an awe, or holy fear of God which I have often found to be lacking in some Protestant Churches, especially the “Jesus is my homeboy” crowd. I wonder if they have ever noticed the subtle change in the relationship the disciples had with Jesus after the resurrection? Up until then He allowed certain liberties as their teacher, but not any more. Now they see Him clearly as their God and king. They loved Him before, now they worship Him. They hugged Him before, now they bow down before Him. Many don’t have that sense of awe before God, and they read that same attitude back into the Gospel accounts.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

It isn’t just the exchange between Mary and the archangel in Luke, it is also the fact that Jesus’ brothers do not behave towards him as younger brothers to the eldest but rather the opposite, and finally Christ placing His mother in the care of His nephew John the Evangelist. If Jesus was the first of several children of Mary then she would have been automatically in their care at Jesus’ death. We know that after Christ’s resurrection and ascension they were all believers, so placing her in John’s care would be completely inexplicable. However, as is taught by ALL the ancient Churches, whether Assyrian or Coptic or Eastern Orthodox or Catholic, Mary had no more children after the birth or Christ. Her womb contained God for nine months. What pious man would ever consider shooting his sperm into such a hallowed chamber, which Christ had made His throne for the good part of a year? Merely grasping the Ark resulted in one man being struck down, and his intentions were pious. Do you honestly think a man like Joseph would treat Mary’s womb as common ground for him to till after His creator had been there before him? I don’t, but then we Orthodox Christians have always maintained an awe, or holy fear of God which I have often found to be lacking in some Protestant Churches, especially the “Jesus is my homeboy” crowd. I wonder if they have ever noticed the subtle change in the relationship the disciples had with Jesus after the resurrection? Up until then He allowed certain liberties as their teacher, but not any more. Now they see Him clearly as their God and king. They loved Him before, now they worship Him. They hugged Him before, now they bow down before Him. Many don’t have that sense of awe before God, and they read that same attitude back into the Gospel accounts.

Amen!

 

[prodromos]

Sorry about my long winded response above. I’m not particularly good at expressing my thoughts.

Something I wanted to add which I consider as support for the tradition regarding Mary being raised in the temple from childhood. Has anyone ever noticed the way every person in the bible responds when confronted with an angel? Whether it is in the Old Testament or New, it usually involves falling flat on their face out of fear.
When Mary in confronted by the Archangel Gabriel however, the gospel describes her as being “troubled”, and that by the angel’s greeting, not the appearance of the angel. Her response fits perfectly with the tradition that she was regularly visited by angels during her time at the temple. The Archangel was just another angel for her, whereas anyone else would have fallen down in fear.

 

[808Catholic]

I have no idea what you are talking about. When did I ever say anyone was wrong? I have only said what is undeniably true - that the doctrine of perpetual virginity comes from Tradition, is not inconsistent with Scripture, but is not found in Scripture. Catholics do not rely on Scripture alone, and Catholic teaching does not come from Scripture alone.

My bad. I was confused by your double negative.

 

[TMC]

Did Luke make it up then? The only one present was Mary. It had to have come from Mary. Reading into the text? It is no more reading into the text than stating that Mary would not be speaking Greek. The text states that she asks the angel how the same text states she was in the first part of marriage. It seems to me that to say that she is merely asking how she is going to have a baby because she does not have sex is ignoring what the text is stating. The question is never explained but merely ignored because it doesn’t fit into the opinion there is nothing in scripture that supports Mary as an ever virgin. If it admitted that this question is not about how she will get pregnant but her questioning if she is released from her vow, then those who deny her being ever virgin will be forced to admit they are wrong.

The choices are not direct from Mary or made up. Luke recorded what he was told from many sources, he says so right in the text. Luke could have received this story third or fourth hand, or more.

 

[Eliza10]

Sorry about my long winded response above. I’m not particularly good at expressing my thoughts.

Something I wanted to add which I consider as support for the tradition regarding Mary being raised in the temple from childhood. Has anyone ever noticed the way every person in the bible responds when confronted with an angel? Whether it is in the Old Testament or New, it usually involves falling flat on their face out of fear.
When Mary in confronted by the Archangel Gabriel however, the gospel describes her as being “troubled”, and that by the angel’s greeting, not the appearance of the angel. Her response fits perfectly with the tradition that she was regularly visited by angels during her time at the temple. The Archangel was just another angel for her, whereas anyone else would have fallen down in fear.

Interesting point!

 

[Eliza10]

Jesus was conceived by a union of Mary and the Holy Spirit. Mary is therefor the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

For Mary to have then had relations with another man makes her an adulterer.

If Mary is an adulterer then Jesus is the son of an adulterer. Jesus cannot be both the son of an adulterer and the Son of God. It is not possible.

-Tim-

True.

 

[Eliza10]

It shows far more than that.
Consider the word “perpetuate”, that word means to “continue” in a state.
What you probably don’t realize is that Greek tenses of verbs do not agree with English tenses precisely; and you are trying to force Mary’s words to fit a tense she did not use.

If Mary were merely talking about an aspect of the situation, or logical problem, then she ought to have been recorded in the Aorist tense. Aorist is about relationship or logic, and does not strictly have anything to do with time or when something happens. So if Mary had said “I haven’t known a man (until now)” or “I haven’t got a man” the idea would be Aorist. Aorist is something subject to change at a moments notice and has nothing to do with the future at all. In general, the Aorist tense is typically translated as past tense in English, although when it’s evident that it didn’t ever happen in the past; a translator will choose an arbitrary tense to do the translation.

However, when I check the Greek – that’s not the tense I find.
Rather I find Mary speaking in the Greek PIA tense, as anyone can check.

biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/1-34.htm

The PIA tense is often translated as present tense in English. But, if you check any grammar book on Greek, you will find that it is not the same as English present. It is a verb that STRESSES a CONTINUING action. In order to translate it precisely, in English, an adverb is required.

ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm
What Mary precisely said, is, “How can this be since I continually do not know man?”

That’s exactly where the word “perpetual” virginity comes from.

No, the perpetual/continual nature of the verb means that Mary could not see how it would ever change. The condition, whatever it was, had to be resolved – for it would not resolve itself. She believed it would go on exactly like it was for as far into the future as she could see.

The angel uses no Greek tenses to indicate Mary was pregnant immediately or very soon. It’s ridiculous to think Mary thought the angel said she was “already” pregnant; I mean she wouldn’t have asked “how shall this be.” (future tense, middle voice) if she believed she was already to be pregnant. She is talking about the future, and indicating that there is an ongoing, perpetual problem that she doesn’t know how to solve.

The only tense Mary could have used that would have been stronger is the perfect tense. That would mean that Mary refuses to ever have sexual relations with a man, ever.

But she is faced with God who has the power to over-rule even a person’s oath, and such a statement would be both prideful and border on sinful. It’s not surprising she doesn’t use it. If God wanted her to have sexual relations with Joseph, he certainly could tell her to do so in spite of any oath or other impediment. But God doesn’t tell her anything of the sort through the angel.

Of course not. She can’t say that.
But the idea of perpetual, (AKA continual), not knowing of man (AKA virginity) is exactly what is said in the Greek. I know of NO Greek speaking church, Orthodox or other, which misses the inference. It’s only in Latin and English, where the verb tense is not as clear, that people begin to wonder if she is talking about an ongoing problem or a transient issue.

Where in scripture is the CHANGE which indicates that the problem is resolved and exactly when does it happen? There is no indication of change, and the evidence points to a perpetual problem!

Well said, again, Huiou!

 

[adrift]

The choices are not direct from Mary or made up. Luke recorded what he was told from many sources, he says so right in the text. Luke could have received this story third or fourth hand, or more.

Which I acknowledged but my belief you can’t say I believe he is accurately conveying the gospel here but I question here. I personally believe that he got it straight from Mary but even if he didn’t it is an accurate portrayal of what occurred.

 

[808Catholic]

True.

Not sure if that position is or would be supported by Catholic doctrine.

 

[adrift]

You are levering a lot of meaning into words that Mary did not actually speak - unless you think that Mary spoke Greek to the angel.

If you are going to carry out this way of thinking than you cannot trust anything recorded in the Gospels as to what Jesus said. You are making the unwarranted assumption that if Mary did not speak Greek that we cannot trust the Greek to convey what she said.

You are also asking for proof of a change away from a condition that is not really found in the text.

Really! What text are you referring to? Do you have the original Scripture?

Again, I think that the passage in Luke allows for perpetual virginity but does not mandate it. I think most biblical scholars agree with that (not that that is conclusive, either).

You can find some to agree with anything. It is nice of you to admit that it could be since you state originally that scripture was silent.

If the words are so clear and plain, why is it that the Church teaches that perpetual virginity comes from the Sacred Tradition? And why is it that those that reject Sacred Tradition also tend to reject perpetual virginity?

Did I say they were clear and plain? What document do you refer to when you say the Church teaches? Those who reject teachings usually do so to justify why they don’t obey the Church.

 

[adrift]

Which I acknowledged but my belief you can’t say I believe he is accurately conveying the gospel here but I question here. I personally believe that he got it straight from Mary but even if he didn’t it is an accurate portrayal of what occurred.

This seemed a little muddled hopefully I can phrase it better

In my opinion, you can’t say this scripture portrays rightly but this scripture can’t be trusted.

 

[TMC]

This seemed a little muddled hopefully I can phrase it better

In my opinion, you can’t say this scripture portrays rightly but this scripture can’t be trusted.

I’m not saying that scripture can’t be trusted. But scripture is inspired, not dictated. The gospels must contain some errors in wording and so forth, as they don’t agree with one another. Perpetual virginity seems to be a big topic to infer from a few words which are far from clear on the point, and not echoed in the other gospels.