Biblical proof of Mary's virginity

[The Times]

Jesus is the union of the man with God accomplishing the Law.

Jesus had to be every part of the Church and born and purified into the Church by a legally bound union between a human man and a human woman pointing to the ancestry as recorded in Matthew 1 in fulfilling prophesy.

Under the Mosaic Law God cannot be given into spiritual marriage within the constructs of the Temple Centred Worship.

The me in you and I in you as the Father is in me and I in him is the spiritual marriage Pentecost and onward. Until this was made possible within the spiritual temple, Mary and Joseph had to abide by the Mosaic Law of being legally married before God.

It is Mary and Joseph with the child presenting themselves before God within the purification Mosaic custom and not God presenting himself before himself. God is not obligated nor constrained to the Mosaic law purification.

In essence Mary and Joseph had to have presented themselves before God as a legally bound couple before God and under the Mosaic Law, otherwise their purification would be an act of unfaithfulness to God if they were not legally married.

Would Joseph and Mary lie?

Absolutely not!

So Joseph did as was instructed of him by the angel and married Mary officially through the Church. They were registered as married and also people knew them as married.

What you are presenting is a post pentecost context Liberal argument that is exegetically flawed at its core.

 

[The Times]

Call it what you want. But I find it disappointing that in the end your strongest argument is to discredit me by calling me a liberal.

Please don't take it personal friend.
I am discrediting the Liberal Theology you present and not you, because I don't even know you.

 

[gordonhooker]

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

Can you provide a source for that assertion please?

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

Under the Mosaic Law God cannot be given into spiritual marriage within the constructs of the Temple Centred Worship

Then Jesus is a bastard, According to you of course.

So Joseph did as was instructed of him by the angel and married Mary officially through the Church. They were registered as married and also people knew them as married

Sorry in which verse they get maried?

What you are presenting is a post pentecost context Liberal argument that is exegetically flawed at its core

Do you always have the habit of taking people personally? I am not a liberal nor a Docetic. And the exegesis I have presented comes from someone very well educated. Argue against his thesis not against him.

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

Can you provide a source for that assertion please?

LOL the source is the Gospels themselves first. And for more information read the thread.

 

[The Times]

Then Jesus is a bastard, According to you of course.

This is not misrepresenting what I said?

Why misrepresent what I said!

Jesus is the ligitamate son of Joseph and Mary under the Mosaic Law.

Did I say he was not a ligitamate child between a legally binding union between a man and a woman?

No!

Sorry in which verse they get maried?

Why are you asking for a verse on your second breath when on the first breath you previously stated that the gospel accounts were midrashik?

Oh oh!

Do you always have the habit of taking people personally? I am not a liberal nor a Docetic. And the exegesis I have presented comes from someone very well educated. Argue against his thesis not against him.

I didn't say you were Liberal or Docetic. I said your Thesis presents a Liberal Theology 101 in the workings that is all.

You may be very well educated and versed in the gift of the gab and I never attacked your education, did I?

I decimated your Thesis arguments by a common sense exegetical approach. By which you reverted to discounting the gospel accounts as Midrashik and then on the second breath your asking me to give you a verse?

Seriously friend, Common please! What do you take me for?

I am not as educated but my qualities are in defeating arguments with reasoned answers.

I achieve this when my opponent is seen to move the goal posts so to speak.

Nuns and marriage under the Mosaic Law?

 

[gordonhooker]

LOL the source is the Gospels themselves first. And for more information read the thread.

I take it from that rather silly response you have no idea where you got that from and you have obviously had no formal academic studies of the NT and the synoptic Gospels.

 

[prodromos]

Well the usual so let's look:

Numbers 30: NASB
1Then Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the sons of Israel, saying, “This is the word which the LORD has commanded. 2“If a man makes a vow to the LORD, or takes an oath to bind himself with a binding obligation, he shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.

3“Also if a woman makes a vow to the LORD, and binds herself by an obligation in her father’s house in her youth, 4and her father hears her vow and her obligation by which she has bound herself, and her father says nothing to her, then all her vows shall stand and every obligation by which she has bound herself shall stand. 5“But if her father should forbid her on the day he hears of it, none of her vows or her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand; and the LORD will forgive her because her father had forbidden her.

6“However, if she should marry while under her vows or the rash statement of her lips by which she has bound herself, 7and her husband hears of it and says nothing to her on the day he hears it, then her vows shall stand and her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand. 8“But if on the day her husband hears of it, he forbids her, then he shall annul her vow which she is under and the rash statement of her lips by which she has bound herself; and the LORD will forgive her.

9“But the vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, everything by which she has bound herself, shall stand against her. 10“However, if she vowed in her husband’s house, or bound herself by an obligation with an oath, 11and her husband heard it, but said nothing to her and did not forbid her, then all her vows shall stand and every obligation by which she bound herself shall stand. 12“But if her husband indeed annuls them on the day he hears them, then whatever proceeds out of her lips concerning her vows or concerning the obligation of herself shall not stand; her husband has annulled them, and the LORD will forgive her.

13“Every vow and every binding oath to humble herself, her husband may confirm it or her husband may annul it. 14“But if her husband indeed says nothing to her from day to day, then he confirms all her vows or all her obligations which are on her; he has confirmed them, because he said nothing to her on the day he heard them. 15“But if he indeed annuls them after he has heard them, then he shall bear her guilt.”

16These are the statutes which the LORD commanded Moses, as between a man and his wife, and as between a father and his daughter, while she is in her youth in her father’s house.

These are vows/oaths to the LORD and has nothing to do with marital vows.

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

 

[prodromos]

It's not confirming what you assert. She did not have any children for the remaining days of her life. That is what the Hebrew says concretely.

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.
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. Every detail they include is important and they include nothing that isn't, so your interpretation of this verse is in stark contrast to the rest of the Gospel.

 

[marineimaging]

All I know is that we can over complicate the message of salvation and grace. I used to drive myself crazy lying awake all night trying to figure out all of the innuendos and dodging rabbits to and fro..., did he, didn't he? Was it a he or a she. What about this and what about that. Then one day the Holy Spirit had mercy on me and it all became so simple. I pray for all of us to find that simple message and stop persecuting and trying to outdo each other in understanding our Creator and His only begotten Son.

 

[Tutorman]

"I will show that Origen is undoubtedly the greatest exegete in Christian history."

Come on please! Are you serious?

Especially when Origen was considered a heretic

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

This is not misrepresenting what I said?

Why misrepresent what I said!

Jesus is the ligitamate son of Joseph and Mary under the Mosaic Law.

Did I say he was not a ligitamate child between a legally binding union between a man and a woman?

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.

Why are you asking for a verse on your second breath when on the first breath you previously stated that the gospel accounts were midrashik?

Oh oh!

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

I didn't say you were Liberal or Docetic. I said your Thesis presents a Liberal Theology 101 in the workings that is all.

You may be very well educated and versed in the gift of the gab and I never attacked your education, did I?

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

I decimated your Thesis arguments by a common sense exegetical approach. By which you reverted to discounting the gospel accounts as Midrashik and then on the second breath your asking me to give you a verse?

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

Nuns and marriage under the Mosaic Law?

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

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

I take it from that rather silly response you have no idea where got that from and you have obviously had no formal academic studies of the NT and the synoptic Gospels.

I hope you are not serious...

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

Especially when Origen was considered a heretic

The people who condemned Origen made a terrible mistake.

 

[Athanasius377]

Especially when Origen was considered a heretic

And this non-sense is his fruit.

 

[gordonhooker]

I hope you are not serious...

I am deadly serious...

 

[Athanasius377]

Can you provide a source for that assertion please?

You will be waiting a long time since we're 32 pages of posts in and he still hasn't been able to prove his original point. My post could be entirely symbolic though. . .

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

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.

 

[Tutorman]

The people who condemned Origen made a terrible mistake.

Of course because you know so much more than the Church Fathers and the Church herself

 

[Athanasius377]

It's serious friends, a little mature 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.

I think this post is entirely symbolic.