Biblical proof of Mary's virginity

[Chrétien de Troyes]

I think this post is entirely symbolic.

No matter, the message is done. Now argue your comments seriously and have respect for the person who takes his time to discuss with you.

 

[The Times]

The Gospels contradict each other on more than one aspect, and often it is significant.

This statement is one that we understand originates from Liberal Theological Thinking, that is Liberals who say.....

"Matthew didn't write Matthew, Luke didn't write Luke, Mark didn't write Mark and that they are all Synoptic Gospels because they include many of the same stories, often in a similar sequence and in similar or sometimes identical wording."

Please look, I get it ok! fair enough!

I understand where you are coming from.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating and when I taste Liberal Theological claims, I can not help but vomit it straight back out. To me, it is natural to vomit it back out because I cannot stomach it and it is bitter to the core.

I will inform you how bitter the claim of Liberal Theology is.

Basically, the consequence of such Liberal Theological assertions of gospel errancy in play owing to authors writing their own versions of realities resulting from their group experiences is to remove Christ's authority and to place it in the hands of those within those groups who set truths as they see it within their group. Over time Christ's authority is no longer Christ's authority and the resurrection of Christ is no longer the bodily resuscitation of Christ and truth is not absolute but is subjective according to how that group sees it as truth.

The Liberal method to discount bible versus as relative truths, that are based on contradictory synopsis claims on one breath and yet proceed on the second breath to present a Thesis that appears to have biblical authority is a slide of hand trick and we can see it, friend, we really can see it.

 

[The Times]

He is not the son of Joseph and is not born of their union, if Joseph is the Father at the Temple, then we have a problem.

I did not say Jesus was born of the union between Joseph and Mary.

I stated that within the Mosaic Purification Custom, Joseph and Mary must have had to present themselves as a legally bound couple in marriage.

Luke 2:48
And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

Mary as a witness of fact declares Joseph as Jesus's father. This strongly suggests that they are a legally married couple within the Mosaic Law.

There is absolutely no problem at all when Joseph and Mary presented themselves in the purification ceremony as a legally married couple. However, there would be a problem if they were not officially married within the Church Mosaic Law.

A midrash can be as much a comment as a fictional allegory, for your information.

So, from what I gather when Mary in Luke 2:48 said that Joseph is Jesus's father, then she admitted the relationship with Joseph as her husband was a fictional allegory, for that particular synopsis verse only right?

So, who gets to choose what is a comment or a synoptic allegory? Because any rational person would take what Mary declared as a witness of fact as a factual comment, that is Joseph is legally her husband.

The thesis is not from me… How many time I said it?

Ok, fair enough.

This is not a serious refutation, we speak of exegesis here no theology.

I don't understand how you define exegesis since you claimed in your thread that Origen is the best exegete. I just can not see how you can make that claim. Please explain.

What are you laughing about? In Hellenistic Judaism, wisdom is the wife of God. in a symbolic way.

You mean Sophia. I thought that it came from Gnostic writings.

Do you honestly believe that Sophia is the wife of God as claimed by Gnostic writers? The Queen of Heaven who gave life to all of humanity.

You say symbolic, but how is Mary symbolic if she needed a savior just like you and me.

 

[redleghunter]

The Gospels are not historical texts, I personally believe that they are midrashim. But this is another topic.

Perhaps that may just be the problem.

 

[redleghunter]

There is no evidences of the opposite.

You are arguing from the position of silence along with ignoring all the texts Whereas the Gospels are not silent on Jesus’s brothers and sisters.

The NT is silent on Nuclear war.

 

[redleghunter]

It is a method where we try to understand the meaning of symbols. It is therefore much more reliable than a method where the existence of symbols is deliberately ignored.

Luke starts his gospel as a historical document

 

[prodromos]

Matthew, Mark and Luke are actually three translations of the same document, not three independant works.

Some people think this. Many do not. It does not help you when you state as fact something that is only a theory.

 

[prodromos]

The people who condemned Origen made a terrible mistake.

Are you wiser than the God bearing Father's of the Church?

 

[gordonhooker]

Sorta like talking to a brick wall....

 

[Athanasius377]

Are you wiser than the God bearing Father's of the Church?

Not even a theory. It's a retread and repurpose of the Weisse Hypothesis from the 19th century which seems to find new life every 50 years or so. When you mix Origenism with 19th century protestant liberalism this is what you get.

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

"Matthew didn't write Matthew, Luke didn't write Luke, Mark didn't write Mark and that they are all Synoptic Gospels because they include many of the same stories, often in a similar sequence and in similar or sometimes identical wording."

I'm not saying Matthew did not write Matthew. Read me correctly. I say it is a translation. I do not question the paternity of the works, only the fact that they would be independent works.

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

Are you wiser than the God bearing Father's of the Church?

Surely more than those who burned his books, and certainly more than those who consider it was good thing.

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

I don't understand how you define exegesis since you claimed in your thread that Origen is the best exegete. I just can not see how you can make that claim. Please explain.

I extol Origen's exegetical qualities, not his theological qualities. Users of this forum do not even seem to know how to differentiate between these two notions.

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

You mean Sophia. I thought that it came from Gnostic writings.

Do you honestly believe that Sophia is the wife of God as claimed by Gnostic writers? The Queen of Heaven who gave life to all of humanity.

You say symbolic, but how is Mary symbolic if she needed a savior just like you and me.

No, originally it comes from Hellenistic Judaism, the gnosis later recovered.

Wisdom 8

1 Her great power reaches into every part of the world, and she sets everything in useful order.
2 Wisdom has been my love. I courted her when I was young and wanted to make her my bride. I fell in love with her beauty. 3 She glorifies her noble origin by living with God, the Lord of all, who loves her. 4 She is familiar with God's mysteries and helps determine his course of action.

 

[prodromos]

Surely more than those who burned his books, and certainly more than those who consider it was good thing.

The evil one prefers the subtle approach to introducing error, mixing truth with small, seemingly innocuous falseties, since full blown heresy is much easier to identify and reject. Origen's works were likely more dangerous than the stuff that was clearly heretical.

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

The evil one prefers the subtle approach to introducing error, mixing truth with small, seemingly innocuous falseties, since full blown heresy is much easier to identify and reject.

The wise man knows how to make the difference between a work of exegesis and a theological development.

 

[redleghunter]

It is grammatically identical to Matthew 1:25, yet you insist that the Matthew passage is concrete evidence that Joseph "knew" Mary after she gave birth to Jesus, whereas 2 Samuel demonstrates the opposite.

Contextually different as I already pointed out. Dead women do not conceive and give birth to children. Married couples do have conjugal relations. It's been done many times in the past....There's proof of this!

You also fail to demonstrate why Matthew would make such an explicit statement about their sex life (by your interpretation) when it has absolutely no bearing on the Gospel.

I also explained that as well. Matthew is ensuring his audience fully understands the prophecy of Isaiah that it regards Mary and she was a Virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus Christ.

 

[redleghunter]

Nuns and marriage under the Mosaic Law?

That was my favorite as well. Brings back memories of Sister Mary Elizabeth Margaret in Catholic school algebra. I can still feel the sting of the ruler on my knuckles.

I knew I was in real trouble when she withheld the ruler and sent me to the dean of discipline a hothead Irish priest.

 

[redleghunter]

So when a woman vows to remain celibate, when her husband hears it and does not annul it, her vow shall stand.

Wow that's quite a stretch to read that into the text.

 

[redleghunter]

It's serious friends, a little maturity please. The Synoptic Gospels are not independent works. This is obvious to anyone who is not blinded by any ideology. I ask you a little serious in your answers.
When someone brings arguments the least thing is to try to understand them. You have no respect, all you are trying to do is give your opinion and make a blind refutation when you do not even understand the arguments put forward.
There have been serious studies done on the gospels and all you find is to pretend that they are old studies of the 19th century. But no! These are not "old studies" these are observations that anyone with a brain is able to make.
Do you think it's impossible for the Gospels to be Midrashim? Why? It is a literary genre typical of Hebrew culture and all your attempts to rebut the subject are weak. The Gospels contradict each other on more than one aspect, and often it is significant.
You seem unable to accept that the Gospels were written for particular communities and each author made additions to convey a message. This is the kind of thing that was repeatedly demonstrated by several exegetes, be they atheists or Christians.

Once again, I ask you for respect in your answers. If you do not want to talk and all that interests you is to shut me up, then tell me openly! Tell me to shut up, because I disturb you in your certainty. A little maturity please.

No, but seriously it's not even serious your behavior. Honestly, I did not expect such an attitude from Christians.

Just curious...what non-denominational group holds your views? Your profile says "non-denom" but didn't you start the thread as Oriental Orthodox?