Prayers to Mary in concerning Matthew

[leothelioness]

And it says they had unions where?

I hope I can explain it in a way that is easily understood.

When Mary was visited by the angel Gabriel he told her she would conceive a child in her womb. She responded saying, "How can this be seeing I know not a man?" By the use of the word "know" we can logically concluded that it means she had no sexual relations with a man. The word "know" is also used in Genesis to refer to sexual relations..."And Adam knew his wife Eve and she conceived."

Now we know what the words "know" and "knew" mean in archaic English. That should make this next verse easy to understand. In Matthew 1:24-25 it says, "24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus."

As was clearly indicated in that verse along with the use of the word "knew" Joseph did not have sexual relations with his wife until she had brought forth Christ. As was customary in Jewish tradition a woman had to fulfill her days of purification before her husband could have sexual relations with her.

Did that explain it all right?

 

[leothelioness]

I can say Mary was ever virgin because this is what was taught by the Apostles since the begining.

You can't and it wasn't. You were taught that by your church.

 

[Rion]

Because the verse says in English.."until" which was translated from eos ou which does not really mean that after that time, she would have known a man in that way. Until is used in the Bible many times, to convey certain things, but does not mean that only until, something happens it will end. For instance Jesus said "I will be with you even until the end of ages".
Does that mean that after the end of ages, He will no longer be with us? It also says.."Sit thou on my right hand, Till (until) I make thine enemies thy footstool." Does this mean when Jesus' enemies are made His foot stool, He will no longer sit at the right hand of the Father?

But it can also be used to signify something that DOES come to an end.

"And as they were descending from the mountain Jesus commanded them, saying: 'Tell the vision to no one until (eos ou) the Son of Man is raised up from the dead." Matt. 17:3

"And behold! I am sending forth upon you that which is promised by my Father. You, therefore, abide in the city until (eos ou) you become clothed with power from on high." Luke 24:4a

Also, Luke states that upon arriving in Bethlehem, "she gave birth to her firstborn son..." That Mary had a firstborn son implies that there were other children, since if Christ were her only child the text would have stated "only son".

I can say Mary was ever virgin because this is what was taught by the Apostles since the begining.

Doesn't seem that way..

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says that the Greek words adelphoi and adelphai

have the meaning of full blood brother and sister in the Greek-speaking world of the Evangelist's time and would naturally be taken by his Greek reader in this sense. Toward the end of the 4th century (c. 380) Helvidius in a work now lost pressed this fact in order to attribute to Mary other children besides Jesus so as to make her a model for mothers of larger families. St. Jerome, motivated by the Church's traditional faith in Mary's perpetual virginity, wrote a tract against Helvidius (A.D. 383) in which he developed an explanation ... that is still in vogue among Catholic scholars.

(Vol. IX, p.337)

 

[repentant]

I hope I can explain it in a way that is easily understood.

When Mary was visited by the angel Gabriel he told her she would conceive a child in her womb. She responded saying, "How can this be seeing I know not a man?" By the use of the word "know" we can logically concluded that it means she had no sexual relations with a man. The word "know" is also used in Genesis to refer to sexual relations..."And Adam knew his wife Eve and she conceived."

Now we know what the words "know" and "knew" mean in archaic English. That should make this next verse easy to understand. In Matthew 1:24-25 it says, "24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus."

As was clearly indicated in that verse along with the use of the word "knew" Joseph did not have sexual relations with his wife until she had brought forth Christ. As was customary in Jewish tradition a woman had to fulfill her days of purification before her husband could have sexual relations with her.

Did that explain it all right?

Notice you said that Gabriel said she would conceive a Son?

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

Why would she assume the Angel meant without a man? Why would she assume he was not talking about some future event? She said this because she was a pledged virgin, a virgin that was pledged her virginity to God. She was one of the Temple virgins. She asked this because she had made the pledge, and thought "How can I have a child without a man"..

Does this make sense?

The word "knew" here is not the issue. Matthew used this to convey the message that Jesus was the Messiah because He was born of a virgin. The issue here is "until", which is translated from the Greek eos ou which is not meant to be assumed that after she had her Firstborn Son, she would "know" a man. Like I posted above, the word "until" is used many times, and does not mean that after, things would change, i.e. Christ being with us, even until the end of ages..

 

[repentant]

You can't and it wasn't. You were taught that by your church.

I can and it was. The Orthodox Church is the Church of the Apostles, and the Apostles started the Orthodox Church. So yea, I guess you can say my Church taught me that..

And your "Church" taught you that she wan't ever virgin..a belief only started 1500 years after Christ..

 

[Rion]

And your "Church" taught you that she wan't ever virgin..a belief only started 1500 years after Christ..

And that is a lie. Protestants/Non-Orthodox do NOT believe she was never a virgin. You have no right to claim we call God a liar. None.

 

[repentant]

But it can also be used to signify something that DOES come to an end.

"And as they were descending from the mountain Jesus commanded them, saying: 'Tell the vision to no one until (eos ou) the Son of Man is raised up from the dead." Matt. 17:3

"And behold! I am sending forth upon you that which is promised by my Father. You, therefore, abide in the city until (eos ou) you become clothed with power from on high." Luke 24:4a






Also, Luke states that upon arriving in Bethlehem, "she gave birth to her firstborn son..." That Mary had a firstborn son implies that there were other children, since if Christ were her only child the text would have stated "only son".



Doesn't seem that way..

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says that the Greek words adelphoi and adelphai



(Vol. IX, p.337)

Luke 24:4 says..
While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them.

And Matt. 17:3 says..
Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus

So I have no idea what Bible your quoting..

And you need to site sources of where you get your info. Not to mention Catholic teaching means nothign to me, as I;m not Catholic. I am Orthodox..and Greek. I know what adelpho means.

 

[leothelioness]

Notice you said that Gabriel said she would conceive a Son?

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

Why would she assume the Angel meant without a man? Why would she assume he was not talking about some future event? She said this because she was a pledged virgin, a virgin that was pledged her virginity to God. She was one of the Temple virgins. She asked this because she had made the pledge, and thought "How can I have a child without a man"..

Does this make sense?

The word "knew" here is not the issue. Matthew used this to convey the message that Jesus was the Messiah because He was born of a virgin. The issue here is "until", which is translated from the Greek eos ou which is not meant to be assumed that after she had her Firstborn Son, she would "know" a man. Like I posted above, the word "until" is used many times, and does not mean that after, things would change, i.e. Christ being with us, even until the end of ages..

I knew you would do this. I don't see how you can ignore the obvious truth.

The word "knew" is the issue here. That is the whole crux of the argument. The use of the word "knew" indicated that she had sexual relations. Joseph did not know her (have sexual relations with her) until after the birth of Jesus.

I can safely say that you are in denial and it seems you prefer to stay that way. Not exactly a good thing, denying the Gospel and all.

 

[repentant]

And that is a lie. Protestants/Non-Orthodox do NOT believe she was never a virgin. You have no right to claim we call God a liar. None.

Calm down cowboy. I said ever virgin, meaning she was always a virgin, even after Christ..

 

[repentant]

I knew you would do this. I don't see how you can ignore the obvious truth.

The word "knew" is the issue here. That is the whole crux of the argument. The use of the word "knew" indicated that she had sexual relations. Joseph did not know her (have sexual relations with her) until after the birth of Jesus.

I can safely say that you are in denial and it seems you prefer to stay that way. Not exactly a good thing, denying the Gospel and all.

There is no obvious truth that you are speaking on the subject. The word to worry about is "until". It doesn't matter until what, the word eos ou does mean that after he knew her sexually. Until is just used to show that she was virgin when Christ was born. "Knew her not until", is conveying this. How can you say knew is the issue? What if it just read "knew her not", but until was left out? Then what would that mean?


Also I noticed you said nothing on my comment on why Mary reacted as she did..

 

[leothelioness]

I can and it was. The Orthodox Church is the Church of the Apostles, and the Apostles started the Orthodox Church. So yea, I guess you can say my Church taught me that..

There is no evidence whatsoever that your church was founded by the Apostles.

This is a lie that your church has formed to claim spiritual authority, moral superiority and power to rule and control the beliefs and destiny of men. Instead of allowing Christ to lead the Church (body of believers) your church has usurped Christ and allowed man to take His place as the head and ruler of the Church.

It is a false church that has usurped the true church and calims to be so.

 

[repentant]

There is no evidence whatsoever that your church was founded by the Apostles.

This is a lie that your church has formed to claim spiritual authority, moral superiority and power to rule and control the beliefs and destiny of men. Instead of allowing Christ to lead the Church (body of believers) your church has usurped Christ and allowed man to take His place as the head and ruler of the Church.

It is a false church that has usurped the true church and calims to be so.

Ok read history hun..

And I believe Christ left men to lead His Church...what were the Apostles?

Your Calvinist Church was started by a MAN, who decided he didn't want to be Catholic and decided to start his own Church in the 16th century..Orthodox Church can trace all beliefs, succesion, etc, to the time of the Apostles.

By the way, words from your "founder"..

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.

The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation

Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.

-John Calvin.


So why don't you follow your leader?

 

[leothelioness]

There is no obvious truth that you are speaking on the subject. The word to worry about is "until". It doesn't matter until what, the word eos ou does mean that after he knew her sexually. Until is just used to show that she was virgin when Christ was born.

Exactly. It doesn't say that she stayed a virgin after His birth because it clearly says that Joseph knew her after Christ's birth and after her days of purification were fulfilled. Gah. How hard is that to understand???

Also I noticed you said nothing on my comment on why Mary reacted as she did..

Because it wasn't worth commenting on. It was purely speculative (with all the "what if's" and whatnot) and had no Scriptural indication that such a thing was even likely.

My argument, however is not speculative, but based on fact and does have Scriptural evidence to back it up.

 

[Rion]

Luke 24:4 says..
While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them.

And Matt. 17:3 says..
Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus

I hate when I mess up. >.< 49, and 9. I clipped the first, I don't know where I got the 3 from on the second though.

And you need to site sources of where you get your info.

I can probably dig up a site for it, but if we're going to cite sources, both sides should.

Not to mention Catholic teaching means nothign to me, as I;m not Catholic.

Are the Catholics not an Apostalistic church?

I am Orthodox..and Greek. I know what adelpho means.

Then why does every source I find, sans Orthodox/Catholic, claim it means brother, not with the possibility of cousin?

Calm down cowboy. I said ever virgin, meaning she was always a virgin, even after Christ..

My apologies, but if English isn't your first language, "she wasn't ever virgin" would almost always be read as "she was never virgin"

 

[repentant]

Exactly. It doesn't say that she stayed a virgin after His birth because it clearly says that Joseph knew her after Christ's birth and after her days of purification were fulfilled. Gah. How hard is that to understand???

No it does not. Eos ou does not convey that after this time he knew her sexually. You need to understand the Greek language to know this. The translators just used the word until.That is the point. How hard is that to understand? Gosh..

Because it wasn't worth commenting on. It was purely speculative (with all the "what if's" and whatnot) and had no Scriptural indication that such a thing was even likely.

My argument, however is not speculative, but based on fact and does have Scriptural evidence to back it up.

So you would assume that she thought Gabriel meant she was going to be pregnant without a mans help? If an angel came to you, and you were a virgin, and he said you would conceive a son, you would assume that a man was not needed? Or would you assume he is speaking you will be with a man and conceive a son, the way it naturally occurs?

And the Scriptural evidence is Mary's reply to Gabriel after he told her she would conceive a son. Her answer would make more sense for your belief if Gabriel said she was already with child..

 

[repentant]

I hate when I mess up. >.< 49, and 9. I clipped the first, I don't know where I got the 3 from on the second though.

Ok then please post the verses you meant to post.

I can probably dig up a site for it, but if we're going to cite sources, both sides should.

I haven't used anything that needs a bibliography. I just find it hard to believe that a Catholic source would say such a thing. This is why I would like a link.

Are the Catholics not an Apostalistic church?

Yes, but I won't defend Catholic Doctrine, or defend why they say what they say. Even if it is the same belief we have. I would use Orthodox view.

Then why does every source I find, sans Orthodox/Catholic, claim it means brother, not with the possibility of cousin?

What sources?

My apologies, but if English isn't your first language, "she wasn't ever virgin" would almost always be read as "she was never virgin"

I'm sorry, I assumed you would know what "ever virgin" was speaking of.

 

[leothelioness]

Ok read history hun..

And I believe Christ left men to lead His Church...what were the Apostles?

Your Calvinist Church was started by a MAN,

There's several things wrong here. Firstly, there is no such thing as a Calvinist church. Calvinism is not a denomination, but a particular theology. Secondly, your church was founded by men also. You claim your church was founded by the Apostles and they were men were they not? They weren't gods so the answer would have to be yes.

By the way, words from your "founder"..

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.

The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation

Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.

-John Calvin.

John Calvin actually was not the founder of my beliefs. My beliefs and that of other "Calvinists" were founded by God Himself in the Bible.

Besides, Martin Luther was preaching predestination before Calvin stepped onto the scene.

So why don't you follow your leader?

Simple. Because he's not my leader. God is. "Calvinist" was a name given to believers of a particular belief by the Catholic (and EO) church as a mockery (basically saying that Calvin is our leader and god instead of God Himself). Much like the disciples being called "Christians" by the unconverted Jews. Same thing with "Lutherans".

It really has no meaning other than we agree with his particular theology. It is just a term used to discern us from other Christians.

 

[repentant]

There's several things wrong here. Firstly, there is no such thing as a Calvinist church. Calvinism is not a denomination, but a particular theology. Secondly, your church was founded by men also. You claim your church was founded by the Apostles and they were men were they not? They weren't gods so the answer would have to be yes.

Whatever it is, it was started in the 16th century by a man who did not want to be Catholic.

And I believe I said.."And I believe Christ left men to lead His Church...what were the Apostles?"

My Church was started by the Apostles. I would much rather follow a Church founded by them, then "beliefs" founded 1600 years later..



John Calvin actually was not the founder of my beliefs. My beliefs and that of other "Calvinists" were founded by God Himself in the Bible.

Besides, Martin Luther was preaching predestination before Calvin stepped onto the scene.[/QUOTE]

No your beliefs are based on false interpretations.

Simple. Because he's not my leader. God is. "Calvinist" was a name given to believers of a particular belief by the Catholic (and EO) church as a mockery (basically saying that Calvin is our leader and god instead of God Himself). Much like the disciples being called "Christians" by the unconverted Jews. Same thing with "Lutherans".

It really has no meaning other than we agree with his particular theology. It is just a term used to discern us from other Christians.

So the man's who's ideas you believe in, said these things. Why don't you believe these beliefs?

 

[leothelioness]

No it does not. Eos ou does not convey that after this time he knew her sexually. You need to understand the Greek language to know this. The translators just used the word until.That is the point. How hard is that to understand? Gosh..

Since I do not know the Greek I will need your help on this. What does Eos ou literally translate to?

So you would assume that she thought Gabriel meant she was going to be pregnant without a mans help?

That's what the Scripture indicates. He said she was going to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit. To my knowledge no man was needed for this to happen.

If an angel came to you, and you were a virgin, and he said you would conceive a son, you would assume that a man was not needed?

If he said I was going to conceive by the Holy Spirit, yeah I would assume I wouldn't have to have sex with a guy for that to occur.

Or would you assume he is speaking you will be with a man and conceive a son, the way it naturally occurs?

How could anyone come to such a conclusion when it has been plainly told to you that no one but the Holy Spirit would be needed for conception to take place?

And the Scriptural evidence is Mary's reply to Gabriel after he told her she would conceive a son. Her answer would make more sense for your belief if Gabriel said she was already with child..

Whaaa??? I don't see what you're getting at here. That makes no sense.

 

[repentant]

Since I do not know the Greek I will need your help on this. What does Eos ou literally translate to?


That's what the Scripture indicates. He said she was going to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit. To my knowledge no man was needed for this to happen.


If he said I was going to conceive by the Holy Spirit, yeah I would assume I wouldn't have to have sex with a guy for that to occur.


How could anyone come to such a conclusion when it has been plainly told to you that no one but the Holy Spirit would be needed for conception to take place?


Whaaa??? I don't see what you're getting at here. That makes no sense.

But Gabriel did not tell her that she would conceive by the Holy Spirit, until after she said, "how, I know now a man". So your arguement that she thought it would be by the Holy Spirit is pointless.


What I was getting it is..After Gabriel said she would conceive a Son, she reacted with "I know not a man". This implies she had never known a man sexually or will ever know a man sexually, because Gabriel said "You will conceive". To conceive, or conception is the point when a sperm fertilizes an egg. She would not have reacted with "I know not a man", if her future virginity was not in question. Her answer "I know not a man" would make sense in the present sense if Gabriel had told her she was already pregnant.

Gabriel-You have conceived a Son.
Mary-How can this be, I know not a man?

But Gabriel did not say "you have conceived" he said "you will conceive".

Understand?