Speak lovingly of Mary

[Thekla]

Now, how does that substantiate dogma that Mary had no sex ever?





.

before continuing here in your redefinition of parthenos,

consistency demands that you campaign against the labellers of olive oil

as the labels should clearly read:

"No-sex-ever Olive Oil"

and (pricier)

"Extra No-sex-ever Olive Oil"


(have you read the previous posts yet ?)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

(have you read the previous posts yet ?)

Yup, I think I've read all the posts in this thead.
So far, nothing has substantiated the dogma that Mary was a PERPETUAL VIRGIN (or that she was uniquely conceived immaculately or that she was assumed into heaven upon her death or was it her undeath?).

And yes, we all know what the words "perpetual" and "virgin" mean, so I don't know why you desire to distance yourself from the the meaning of the words of the dogma you are defending.

And yes, I'm still wondering how it is regarded as distinctively "loving" to spread a story about an extremely private, personal, intimate aspect of a person's life, one you'd not want spread everywhere as the highest importance to know, especially one so great in potential to embarrass, offend and hurt - I'm still wondering about that. EVEN if you knew it to be true, which obviously, no one has an ounce of substantiation for it. From anyone.




.

 

[Thekla]

please review the tense used by Mary in one of my previous posts that you read

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

before continuing here in your redefinition of parthenos

Here's the definition of the Greek word: "One who has never had intercourse." Are you trying to suggest that the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is that she DID have sex?




.

 

[Thekla]

Here's the definition of the Greek word: "One who has never had intercourse." Are you trying to suggest that the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is that she DID have sex?




.

parthenos means pure (your meaning is a subcategory of the overarching meaning)

please see the previous posts re:

verb tense

 

[lionroar0]

Moot.

1. IF Jesus originally said these words in Aramaic (and that is not - and cannot be known), then we don't have those words. What we all HAVE is the NT words infallibly inspired by God Himself (which is in Greek).

2. IF Jesus spoke the words in Aramaic (and see # 1 above), and IF God had to translate those words into Greek, then I trust God's translation.


.

1. The truth is yes that it can be known. It can be known by analyzing the sentence structures that the Gospels are written. The same way the FBI analyses letters. Reasonable conclusions can be reached.

BTW yes it has been done by scholars.

2. and yet those words were penned by fallable men.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

It's likely he spoke more than just Aramaic. He probably spoke greek as well. In fact, it's more like a given that he spoke greek.

I agree but what we have to guide us on what He spoke are the Gospels. Which can be analyzed for evidence of other languages.

This can be done by analysing sentence structure.

Placement of subject, verbs, adjetives... and also for sentences that follow other idioms that are not Greek.

Peawce

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1. IF Jesus originally said these words in Aramaic (and that is not - and cannot be known), then we don't have those words. What we all HAVE is the NT words infallibly inspired by God Himself (which is in Greek).

2. IF Jesus spoke the words in Aramaic (and see # 1 above), and IF God had to translate those words into Greek, then I trust God's translation.

1. The truth is yes that it can be known. It can be known by analyzing the sentence structures that the Gospels are written. The same way the FBI analyses letters. Reasonable conclusions can be reached.

How is that known? I have a book in which I read the words, "Shepherd us to that bright place, into fields where joy is ringing." How can you determine, with dogmatic certainty, if that is actually a translation of some other language, and if so, which?

2. and yet those words were penned by fallable men.

Absolutely, which is why it matters not who penned them. In the words of the Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 136, "The Bible is the very words of God and so there can be no greater credibility. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does this mean? It means that God is the Author of the Bible and its words are His. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished."

Thus, IF Jesus originally spoke these words in some other language (and I want to know how you can dogmatically determine that), then God is the translator of those words. I do not agree with you that you are a better translator than He and that He somehow "goofed."


Now, back to the issue at hand. How is it specifically LOVING to share a story or report which is obviosly unsubstantiated and expremely personal, private and intimate - something you'd not want spread around among billions of people as the most important level of information? How is that specificly LOVING?






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

parthenos means pure

From YourDictionary.com

Parthenos. Noun. A virgin. An epithet of several Greek goddesses.



From StudyLight.com

Parthenos. Noun.

1. a virgin
2. a marriageable maiden
3. a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man
4. one's marriageable daughter
5. a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so has kept his chastity
   1. one who has never had intercourse with women

IF the usual biblical meaning was "pure" then it would be entirely moot vis-a-vis Mary since there's nothing impure about sexual intercourse with one's spouse. Having sex with Joseph would not, in ANY sense, make her "impure."

 

[Philothei]

Virgin in English and Greek mean also pure... Like we say Virgin olive oil... it does not ONLY has the connotaion of the sex act rather the disposition of someone who is pure thus the term has also the spiritual dimension of the meaning not ONLY with physical sense. The tern "no sex" cannot be applied when we talk about someone's spiritual purity... as "no sex" does not quarantee purity of character or mind thus the more appropriate term Virgin is applied to Theotokos because her purity was much more than just "bodily"and using the "no-sex" will not do justice to her purity as the term is limited in its use, and meaning.

 

[Philothei]

IF the usual biblical meaning was "pure" then it would be entirely moot vis-a-vis Mary since there's nothing impure about sexual intercourse with one's spouse. Having sex with Joseph would not, in ANY sense, make her "impure."

What you say makes no sense since the Parthenos does not qualify her sexual life but her overall life... so the "no-sex" nonsense term you use degrates the Theotokos into a mere physical being and does not potray to her spiritual life. You voluntarily reduce her to a "natural man" void of the Grace of God....conserning yourself ONLY with her physical presence not as a hypostasis of God rather body ONLY...

It is not wonder she is called Virgin and Ever-Virgin as it is in accordance to the Old Testament prophecy about a Virgin giving birth to Christ. Aeiparthenos is a state of being and a disposition that is entirely her choice...She needed neither to advertize it nor to have anyone defend it for she was "blessed among women", and 'the generations would call her blessed...."...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

IF the usual biblical meaning was "pure" then it would be entirely moot vis-a-vis Mary since there's nothing impure about sexual intercourse with one's spouse. Having sex with Joseph would not, in ANY sense, make her "impure."

What you say makes no sense since the Parthenos does not qualify her sexual life but her overall life... so the "no-sex" nonsense term you use degrates the Theotokos into a mere physical being and does not potray to her spiritual life. You voluntarily reduce her to a "natural man" void of the Grace of God....conserning yourself ONLY with her physical presence not as a hypostasis of God rather body ONLY...

1. The Greek word means a virgin.

2. IF you are correct and the word is unrelated to being a virgin but instead mean one who is "pure" then her not being a virgin would not make her impure. There is nothing "impure" about intercourse with one's spouse.

3. IF you are indicating that "virgin" in the Dogma of The Perpetual VIRGINITY of Mary does NOT mean that she never had intercourse but rather that she DID, then I can only conclude that the EO understanding of this dogma is not in line with the RCC understanding.








.

 

[Thekla]

California Josiah -

1. your particularized use of the term "no-sex" as a translation for parthenos reduces virginity to a matter of flesh only

2. Gabriel tells Mary of a FUTURE event (she will conceive); Mary, then betrothed, responds: "I know not a man" using a verb tense that states a fact which is fact past/present/future (CONTINUOUS)

given the latter, if we are to accept your point we must conclude that either:
1.the Bible is in error
2. Mary lied

which to do propose, or did I miss an option ?

 

[Uphill Battle]

California Josiah -

1. your particularized use of the term "no-sex" as a translation for parthenos reduces virginity to a matter of flesh only

2. Gabriel tells Mary of a FUTURE event (she will conceive); Mary, then betrothed, responds: "I know not a man" using a verb tense that states a fact which is fact past/present/future (CONTINUOUS)

given the latter, if we are to accept your point we must conclude that either:
1.the Bible is in error
2. Mary lied

which to do propose, or did I miss an option ?

yes, you did. Verb tense indicating past/present/future does not mean a neccesity for future ad infinitum. She could simply be saying, "I'm not having sex, I haven't had sex, and for now I won't be. Status change would of course, be with her marriage to Joseph.

there is no profession of a vow of perpetual chastity, no decleration of the intention of perpetual virginity, no reason to believe that statement means any such thing.

 

[Thekla]

yes, you did. Verb tense indicating past/present/future does not mean a neccesity for future ad infinitum. She could simply be saying, "I'm not having sex, I haven't had sex, and for now I won't be. Status change would of course, be with her marriage to Joseph.

there is no profession of a vow of perpetual chastity, no decleration of the intention of perpetual virginity, no reason to believe that statement means any such thing.

The future includes her intended marriage to Joseph; Gabriel does not indicate when she will conceive except that it will be in the future; hence, her continuous statement includes the planned marriage.

BTW, I responded to your objections on Joses/Joseph and naming customs.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

California Josiah -

1. your particularized use of the term "no-sex" as a translation for parthenos reduces virginity to a matter of flesh only

2. Gabriel tells Mary of a FUTURE event (she will conceive); Mary, then betrothed, responds: "I know not a man" using a verb tense that states a fact which is fact past/present/future (CONTINUOUS)

given the latter, if we are to accept your point we must conclude that either:
1.the Bible is in error
2. Mary lied

which to do propose, or did I miss an option ?

Greetings. This form of the word "know" is used 7 times according to this fairly good interlinear.
It has helped me immensely in keeping my translations CONSISTANT.
http://www.scripture4all.org/

ginwskw vi present act 1 singular Used 7 times in NC

Textus Rec.) Luke 1:34 eipen de mariam proV ton aggelon pwV estai touto epei andra ou ginwskw

Luke 1:34 Said yet Mariam toward the messenger, "How shall be this, since a man not I-am-knowing/ginwskw <1097> (5719) ?

1 Corinthians 13:12 For we are observing at-present through mirror in obscurity then yet face toward face at present I am knowing/ginwskw <1097> (5719) out of part the yet I shall be knowing according as also I am known.

NKJV) Luke 1:34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?"

NKJV) 1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

Textus Rec.) 1 Corinthians 13:12 blepomen gar arti di esoptrou en ainigmati tote de proswpon proV proswpon arti ginwskw ek merouV tote de epignwsomai kaqwV kai epegnwsqhn

 

[Uphill Battle]

The future includes her intended marriage to Joseph; Gabriel does not indicate when she will conceive; hence, her continuous statement includes the planned marriage.

BTW, I responded to your objections on Joses/Joseph and naming customs.

I saw them. I'm unable to agree. Nothing gained in going on about it.

 

[Thekla]

I saw them. I'm unable to agree. Nothing gained in going on about it.

I find your disagreement with the several Bible translators and the two Gospel writers who recognize the names Joses and Joseph as the same name in different languages curious. Could you explain ?

As for your disagreement with known naming custom, would you care to offer an argument ? I don't mean to be rude, but why is opinion treated as doctrine by yourself, when you claim and decry that others elevate "opinion" to "doctrine" ?

 

[Thekla]

Greetings. This form of the word "know" is used 7 times according to this fairly good interlinear.
It has helped me immensely in keeping my translations CONSISTANT.
http://www.scripture4all.org/

ginwskw vi present act 1 singular Used 7 times in NC

Textus Rec.) Luke 1:34 eipen de mariam proV ton aggelon pwV estai touto epei andra ou ginwskw

Luke 1:34 Said yet Mariam toward the messenger, "How shall be this, since a man not I-am-knowing/ginwskw <1097> (5719) ?

1 Corinthians 13:12 For we are observing at-present through mirror in obscurity then yet face toward face at present I am knowing/ginwskw <1097> (5719) out of part the yet I shall be knowing according as also I am known.

NKJV) Luke 1:34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?"

NKJV) 1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

Textus Rec.) 1 Corinthians 13:12 blepomen gar arti di esoptrou en ainigmati tote de proswpon proV proswpon arti ginwskw ek merouV tote de epignwsomai kaqwV kai epegnwsqhn

note that Paul deliberately limits the verb, whereas Mary does not

(when Christ refers to Himself as "I am" in this same tense, and the response is to seek to stone Him, He also does not limit the verb; He has in this manner identified Himself as God, the "I am" who adressed Moses).

 

[lionroar0]

How is that known? I have a book in which I read the words, "Shepherd us to that bright place, into fields where joy is ringing." How can you determine, with dogmatic certainty, if that is actually a translation of some other language, and if so, which?

Now your introducing something new into the argument. A red herring. We are not talking about what you read nor about dogmatic certainty.

1 st we know that there are three languages used. Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew.

Each with it's own syntax, sentence structure and idioms

When the syntax, sentence structure and idiom fist into one of them, then we know which language the sentence came from.

Absolutely, which is why it matters not who penned them. In the words of the Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 136, "The Bible is the very words of God and so there can be no greater credibility. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does this mean? It means that God is the Author of the Bible and its words are His. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished."

Another red herring. We are talking about the Gospels. Not the entire Bible.

Thus, IF Jesus originally spoke these words in some other language (and I want to know how you can dogmatically determine that), then God is the translator of those words. I do not agree with you that you are a better translator than He and that He somehow "goofed."

Another red herring. I never stated that I was a translator nor that I'm a better translator. Nor did I mention that I can dogmatically determine anything. As Dogmas are determined by the magesterium and not individual Catholics.

Now, back to the issue at hand. How is it specifically LOVING to share a story or report which is obviosly unsubstantiated and expremely personal, private and intimate - something you'd not want spread around among billions of people as the most important level of information? How is that specificly LOVING?

I agree. I would never would want to spread the rumor that Mary had other children. As it's totally unsubstantiated by the Scriptures and also by history but you seem to have no problem with that. I wonder why?

Peace