No Immaculate Conception, No Immutable God

[mcq72]

I am not an expert on this but it is my understanding that the marriage took place at the betrothal.

Yes and no. That is a little bit like saying I got engaged and married at same time…why not just say they got married? What is purpose of betrothal?

My understanding is that you first were betrothed per Luke 1:27. This means an agreement was reached that the two would be “wedded” at some point in future and that point was up to the groom…no set date but could happen at his choosing ( hence to always be prepared as per 10 virgin story). They were not to have relations yet, just like we are not between an engagement and the actual wedding. The girl remains with parents. At some point the groom comes for his wife, takes her to a wedding party/ feast…they are wedded…that night he takes her into his home and consumate marriage.

Again, this is norm for Jewish wedding. Did you read the two pages from book I posted? I think you said book is wrong yet you humbly admit to not being an expert.

Anyways scripture tells us Mary was betrothed which means she had not wedded yet. There is no explicit indication she vowed to be forever virgin. I understand your implication however of such a vow by her response. It is a possible rational interpretation. But so is it also possible and rational that no vow took place. Her response only indicates beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was virgin by two counts, which cover all the bases for a human ( male) pregnancy …she had no relations with any man, before her betrothal and during her betrothal and she had no relations with her betrothed Joseph…this was the expected of any God fearing law abiding
Jewish maiden. This to fulfill prophecy of a virgin coming to bear the Messiah. Her response settles the matter quite succintly as no other response could. Quite to the point with an economy with words.

So again understand your position of a vow and it’s biblical roots. I just kindly disagree and have other biblical understanding. We both also have traditional roots also that are at odds.( understand your tradition to be more prevalent thru out history).

 

[mcq72]

Again… none of this is in the Bible.

Well Luke says she was “betrothed”.

Correct, the bible has not have a “definition” section, and not sure any writing from Moses tells or dictates betrothal/marriage etiquette, othet than to abstain from any pre wedding conjugation.

We also have biblical account of angel telling Joseph to “wed” her, to bring an end to betrothal and take her as wife, and not divorce from betrothal.

No double standard here…just would like for people to understand their wedding process to give an alternative understanding of “I have known no man” besides a vow of virginity…you do understand if Mary were not a virgin at time of visitation , during betrothal period, it would have been premarital conjugation…of course this is only tradition, that is perspective from customs and practices of the time.

 

[Gorgias]

Shame on you. No where in Catholicism is she equated as co-redeemer.

That’s not true. Mary as ‘co-redemptrix’ isn’t a dogma of the Church, but it is an idea that circulates within Catholicism. The idea is that she cooperates with Jesus in the salvation of humanity, as well as mediates for us in intercessory prayer.

Actually people do think it helps explain her response, either a vow of chastity, or simple waiting period of betrothal.

That “waiting period” idea doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny when we look at the passage in Luke, though. Gabriel doesn’t say “you are conceiving” (as in the present tense), but rather, “you will conceive” (future tense). So, if she was simply waiting (to have marital intercourse), her response would have been “great! I can’t wait to have babies by my husband!”. But… that wasn’t her response.

her assertion to being virgin. Has zero indication of future.

I think that’s a short-sighted conclusion. It’s necessary to take the two verbs in conjunction with each other: will conceive (future) with do not know (present).

I think we can make the case that Mary’s use of the present tense is either an assertion about an existing condition not expected to change (“I don’t have wings”), or an assertion which expects a contradiction (“I don’t have the money to buy a Ferrari” – “Oh, don’t worry, you will!”). But, that contradiction doesn’t arrive – rather, an assertion that upholds the present condition is expressed (“you won’t need money, but you’ll still get a Ferrari”).

So, I think an argument based on the present tense of the expression “I do not know man” doesn’t really hold up.

Are you saying as soon as they are married /betrothed they could become one conjugally if a couple desired, and is that before wedding?

If a baby were born to a couple who conceived during the betrothal, the baby would be considered legitimate. So… yeah.

I am not an expert on this but it is my understanding that the marriage took place at the betrothal.

Not really. In the western world, we have a rather binary understanding of marriage. Before the vows: no marriage. Following the vows: totally married. That’s not quite how it worked in 1st century Palestine. There were a number of events that would happen – and not always in a definite order – but one was bound at the time of betrothal.

 

[MarysLurker]

That’s not true. Mary as ‘co-redemptrix’ isn’t a dogma of the Church, but it is an idea that circulates within Catholicism. The idea is that she cooperates with Jesus in the salvation of humanity, as well as mediates for us in intercessory prayer.

The key word in Hope’s post is equated. As you say, Mary is viewed as a (non-dogmatic) Co-Redemptrix but this does not make Her equal to Christ, which is what @Hope was getting at.

 

[mcq72]

That “waiting period” idea doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny when we look at the passage in Luke, though

The waiting period holding up has nothing to do with her response per say. It holds up with Luke saying she was betrothed and that Joseph had not taken her as wedded wife yet. Her response certainly does not negate that, just as you would say does not negate any vow scenario.

Agree she doesn’t say “I have not wedded yet and don’t know when that will be”. She also doesnt quite simply say " But what about my vow to the Lord to be ever virgin?".

I think that’s a short-sighted conclusion.

As short sighted as “until”.

 

[Gorgias]

As short sighted as “until”.

LOL!

You want to assert that “until” in Greek (‘heos’) means “before, but not after”. I get it.

As long as you’re willing to assert, then, that 1 Cor 15:25 means that Jesus ceases ruling once his enemies have been destroyed, then I guess I’d be willing to consider your point.

 

[MarysLurker]

As short sighted as “until”.

Does it matter to you that none of the original Protestant reformers thought Mary was not a pepetpetual Virgin?

John Calvin:

He says that she [Mary of Cleophas] was the sister of the mother of Jesus, and, in saying so, he adopts the phraseology of the Hebrew language, which includes cousins, and other relatives, under the term ‘brothers.’ – John Calvin, Commentary of the Gospel According to John , on John 19:25

The word ‘brothers’, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relative whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons because Christ’s ‘brother’ are sometimes mentioned. – John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke , vol. II, p. 215 (on Matthew 13:55)

Huldrych Zwingli:

I give an example: taught by the light of faith the Christ was born of a virgin, we know that it is so, that we have no doubt that those who have been unambiguously in error have tried to make a figure of speech of a real virgin, and we pronounce absurd the things that Helvidius and others have invented about perpetual virginity. – Huldrych Zwingli. “Friendly Exegesis, that is, Exposition of the Matter of the Eucharist to Martin Luther, February 1527,” in Selected Writings of Huldrych Zwingli , Volume Two, trans. and ed. by H. Wayne Pipkin, Pickwick Publications, 1984 p.275.

Then the pious mind finds wonderful delights in searching for the reasons why the lamb chose to be born of a perpetual virgin, but in this other case it finds nothing but a hopeless horror. Huldrych Zwingli. “Subsidiary Essay on the Eucharist, August 1525,” in Selected Writings of Huldrych Zwingli , Volume Two, trans. and ed. by H. Wayne Pipkin, Pickwick Publications, 1984 p.217.

Martin Luther:

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ, but that she conceived Christ through Joseph and had more children after that. – Martin Luther, “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew,” in Luther’s Works , vol. 45, ed. Walther I. Brand, 1962, Muhlenberg Press, p. 199.

John Wesley:

I believe that he was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. – John Wesley “Letter to a Roman Catholic”

It didn’t bother them. I’m not sure why it drives you so nuts. I guess you think they’re all a bunch of short sighted fools.

 

[mcq72]

But, that contradiction doesn’t arrive – rather, an assertion that upholds the present condition is expressed (“you won’t need money, but you’ll still get a Ferrari”).

Totally agree in that a virgin will bring forth the Christ child. Do not agree that it means virgin forever. Furthermore, to some, giving birth takes you out of category of then being virgin, remaing virgin ( hymen intact). That is why you had fictitious stories circulating of even a miraculous birth, where Jesus the baby just kind of appeared outside of her, to sustain her “virginity”.

If a baby were born to a couple who conceived during the betrothal, the baby would be considered legitimate.

Perhaps but still was under strong impression that consummation was at wedding, not betrothal. Saying a child who arrives or is conceived before wedding but betrothed is " legitimate" is not exactly saying it is the preferred situation, the holy situation. The proper way was to abstain from “relations” until the first night of the 7 day wedding fest. That bedsheet of that first night was vital to proof of virginity. I would infer then pre wedding “union” was a no no.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21

If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,"then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin.Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town,and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found,she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

What Does the Bible Really Teach About Pre-Marital Sex? - Lew Ayotte

So, a friend of mine commented on the absurdity of Jessica Simpson complaining that she hasn’t been able to marry her man yet because he keeps getting her knocked up…...

lewayotte.com

Chet Boyd comment

 

[mcq72]

You want to assert that “until” in Greek (‘heos’) means “before, but not after”. I get it.

No i am limiting until to mean before only, that is when properly used understood

 

[MarysLurker]

As long as you’re willing to assert, then, that 1 Cor 15:25 means that Jesus ceases ruling once his enemies have been destroyed, then I guess I’d be willing to consider your point.

They actually think that Jesus will stop reigning in the sense of enforcing the moral law in Heaven.

That’s why they claim imputed righteousness is true. If you’re a thief, you get forgiven, but you’re still covetous, you can waltz straight into Heaven and take your covetousness with you… because they believe God changes. No need for Purgatory, who cares about Revelation 21:17, God can just change the rules about what’s right and what’s wrong so you can bring your impurity through the pearly gates.

Once again: No Immaculate Conception, No Immutable God.​

 

[hope]

That’s not true. Mary as ‘co-redemptrix’ isn’t a dogma of the Church, but it is an idea that circulates within Catholicism. The idea is that she cooperates with Jesus in the salvation of humanity, as well as mediates for us in intercessory prayer.

Thanks @ MarysLurker for explaining the point that I means

Not really. In the western world, we have a rather binary understanding of marriage. Before the vows: no marriage. Following the vows: totally married. That’s not quite how it worked in 1st century Palestine. There were a number of events that would happen – and not always in a definite order – but one was bound at the time of betrothal.

Yeah really. They were husband and wife at the betrothal. I don’t know what number of events your are referring to but Marriage was in two parts. The agreement at which they were then husband and wife (betrothal) and then when the husband takes his wife to his home. Betrothal:Meaning in Luke

 

[Gorgias]

No i am limiting until to mean before only, that is when properly used understood

So, “before only”, and not after, right?

And, by the way… that’s the way it’s used in English.

 

[hope]

Yes and no. That is a little bit like saying I got engaged and married at same time…why not just say they got married? What is purpose of betrothal?

When this scripture was written the people would have understood it. They would have understood that they were legally Husband and wife and they would have know that it was the period that the wife was not living with her husband.

Again, this is norm for Jewish wedding. Did you read the two pages from book I posted? I think you said book is wrong yet you humbly admit to not being an expert.
There was no link I only read what you said was written.

Anyways scripture tells us Mary was betrothed which means she had not wedded yet
I don’t know if by wedded you mean married if so that is incorrect they were legally married

Betrothal
I understand that she doesn’t come out and say but I made a vow. She didn’t have to the angel would have understood her question. Her question does not make sense and your explanation does not cover that she was married. According to you, she would be expecting a normal relationship with Joseph BUT that is not reflected in her question. The question indicates that she did not expect a normal relationship.

.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t know what number of events your are referring to but Marriage was in two parts.

• betrothal
• exchange of rings
• wedding ceremony / feast
• moving into the husband’s house

So, not as cut-and-dried as you might think.

 

[hope]

• betrothal
  First part of the marriage
• exchange of rings
  Did this happen?
• wedding ceremony / feast
• moving into the husband’s house
  These were the same event and did not occur separately. They make up the second part of the marriage.

 

[mcq72]

Does it matter to you that none of the original Protestant reformers thought Mary was not a pepetpetual Virgin?

“The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although (Catholics )have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews.”…Calvin

Calvin and the Marian Doctrines - Right Reason

Calvin did not accept the Marian doctrines. Without wanting to sound too rancorous, I have to say that anti-Protestant polemics can be the worst. I’m sorry. I know that’s a very one-sided thing to say, but I encounter anti-Protestant polemics more than anti-Catholic polemics, because I’m not...

www.rightreason.org

 

[mcq72]

When this scripture was written the people would have understood it. They would have understood that they were legally Husband and wife and they would have know that it was the period that the wife was not living with her husband.

Correct, before the wedding, when they were to still abstain, per Deut 22

Her question does not make sense and your explanation does not cover that she was married.

She was not wedded…what you are suggesting is that Jewish betrothed couples can have “relations” way before the wedding feast…

 

[mcq72]

That’s why they claim imputed righteousness is true.

keep it simple in case kids are around…do you mean you have your own righteousness, and the righteousness you have is not given graciously, freely. ? Do you create your own good inner man, make yourself a new creation in Christ Jesus ? Do you cleanse your own heart and write God’s laws on them ?

 

[mcq72]

Show me where He said that we should only believe what is in Scripture. Show me where He said I didn’t mean that Peter should have the keys to heaven.

hope, Jesus did show that we are to be scriptural in all our doctrine and attitude. He also showed that tradition can indeed be both good and bad. I think He mentions tradition more often in negative fashion, and to the highest level of their (Jewish) authority.

Jesus also expects and equips each of us to discern teachings and teachers. Jesus asked Peter and the apostles, who were just more disciples of another rabbi, having no office of authority in Jewish society, “Whom do you say that I am?”. That is, judging from what all your elders and leaders say, and your parents and your teachers and your traditions, and what you have seen and heard and experienced, “Whom do you say that I am?” This and other questions are not just for popes or councils or magisteriums to discern , but for every disciple of Christ.

 

[MarysLurker]

ep it simple in case kids are around…do you mean you have your own righteousness, and the righteousness you have is not given graciously, freely. ? Do you create your own good inner man, make yourself a new creation in Christ Jesus ? Do you cleanse your own heart and write God’s laws on them ?

No to all. False argument. Everyone agrees all righteousness comes from Christ.