Annunciation

[Standing Up]

Believe we've run the course on the issue and not wanting to circle it again, I'll leave it at that, unless anyone has something new.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

When the angel Gabriel tells Mary that she will give birth to the Saviourb she said "how can this be seeing that I know not a man"

1. She asks the question is the present. With the present, active, indicative.


2. I see two possibilities here:

A. Mary WRONGLY believes that this conception will happen MONTHS or YEARS or DECADES in the future. Yes, in that case, She likely would be unitied fully to Her husband. Perhaps even have a plethora of children already.

B. Mary CORRECTLY understands that this conception is NOW. Of that moment if not of that day. Since She has not yet been fully united to Her spouse, the question is relevant. And so is the tense of the question.


Frankly, I agree with ancient tradition and with the RC Denomination. Both of which insist that the Annunciation and the Incarnation happened on the same day - if not at the very same moment, which is why the Annunciation is celebrated on March 25 (do the math). I think Mary was correct. How She knew is mystery, but in any case, She was correct. The Incarnation was happening that day (if not as they spoke). Thus, Her question is relevant. Thus the present, active, indicative verb tense. And thus it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Her vaginal state 1, 10, 20 or 30 years in the future (when the issue here would be entirely irrelevant).



That's my perspective. Catholics are required to disagree, I understand that.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Standing Up]

In further support of #2b above,

Lk. 1:29 And when she saw [him], she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner [what sort or quality] of salutation this should be.

As to the when, consent-

v38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

An angel has just greeted her with a salutation that has no equal in scripture, says nothing about a child at this point, and her being concerned about such a greeting (Luke 1.29) is somehow supportive that she miraculously understands she is about to concieve right then and there (2b). Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?

Am not sure how or why I would believe this over what has been passed from tradition. I have zero support from any early writers for any such understanding. On the other hand if I wanted to find an understanding which contradicts what is passed to me from tradition, just so I could support what I all ready believe AGAINST that tradition, then speculation is all I have.

In Mary's world coming up pregnant without "knowing a man" is not part of the picture. If her miraculous thinking was this angel is telling me I will be pregnant tonight or even right then, why wouldn't the question be where is the man? How can this happen tonight/right now when there is no man here? Or where is Joseph?

As for 2a, am not sure how I could see that as a possibility since she does know a man, whom presumably she could become pregnant (if that were her intent).

Notably absent from any "possibilities" is what we have from tradition, that she has no intention of EVER "knowing a man" since she has already consecrated hereself to God. That tradition must at least be a possibility when considering her response and I think it makes more sense to me than any other in explaining "I know not a man".