• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Featured Biblical proof of Mary's virginity

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by Chrétien de Troyes, Aug 23, 2018.

  1. Chrétien de Troyes

    Chrétien de Troyes Member

    418
    +44
    Canada
    Catholic
    Private
    I decided to change the name of my faith. Officially I am still in an Orthodox Church, I will see if I will stay. The conversations I have on this forum with the Orthodox frighten me.
     
  2. Tutorman

    Tutorman Charismatic Episcopalian

    +1,328
    United States
    Episcopalian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Of course they do because you had this idea that all you ideas were smart, nay the smartest person around and your finding out just the opposite
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  3. Chrétien de Troyes

    Chrétien de Troyes Member

    418
    +44
    Canada
    Catholic
    Private
    In fact those ideas are just common knowledge...
     
  4. Tutorman

    Tutorman Charismatic Episcopalian

    +1,328
    United States
    Episcopalian
    Married
    US-Republican
    N
    Nope, most of your ideas save this one are about as close to heresy as one can get. But being young and rather prideful you will not understand
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • List
  5. Chrétien de Troyes

    Chrétien de Troyes Member

    418
    +44
    Canada
    Catholic
    Private
    It is now your subterfuge? Pointing on the fact that I am young?
     
  6. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +33,191
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I see we have the same aversion to 19th century theoretical Liberal Theology.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  7. BroRoyVa79

    BroRoyVa79 Member

    232
    +108
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Constitution
    I've read and skimmed through this entire thread. Forgive me if all of this is known by you or anyone else, but from reading your responses, I suspect much of it may not be.

    First, this is not bibilical proof, this is the interpretation of one man, Origen, and those who agree with him and/or interpret these passages similarly while trying to force the original text to agree with them.

    Second, I've had some training in Kione Greek and Hebrew. I'm no expert and I don't remember everything from my classes, but I bring it up because you are taught not to treat languages in this way. Word translation is dependent on context, both immediate and overall context, intent, theme, and usage. It is not treated in a "just so" approach. The context in Matthew 1 indicates both ἀνὴρ and ἄνδρα (which is jut a form of ἀνὴρ) can be translated as husband. Not to mention many have shown these words are translated elsewhere as husband in passages that would make no sense if translated as man.

    Here is a short list:

    Mark 10:12 - Jesus is debating the Pharisees about divorce. One started the debate by posing the question of divorce from the Mosiac law. Jesus replied that divorce was not intended by God who made humanity male and female with the intention of the two being in unison in a marriage. (Which, by the way, I believe answers another issue brought up throughout the thread about Adam and Eve.) Still, the point is that in verse 11 Jesus states, " “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her," He goes on in verse 12:

    "...and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”​

    The word used here is ἄνδρα. The context and intent shows its is best translated husband rather than man. The subject of the topic is similar to Matthew 1:16-19 which is male and female relationships as husband and wife.

    Here is another one:

    Acts 5:9 - Ananias and Sapphira who are declared husband and wife in verse 1 of the chapter have conspired togther to sell property but keep some of the proceeds for themselves after promising to give it all to God. Ananias comes before Peter in deception who exposes him and the former is struck dead by the Holy Spirit. Later, Sapphira comes before Peter maintaining the deception. Peter declares to her in verse 9:

    “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.”
    Again, the word here is ἄνδρα and the context includes their relationship which was established in verse 1 as I said.

    There are plenty of examples showing that andra is often translated as husband when the context warrants it: John 4:16-17; Acts 5:10; 1 Corinthians 7:1-16; Galatians 4:27; Ephesians 4:13; Ephesians 5:33; 1 Timothy 3:2.

    Here is another one for aner:

    Romans 7:2-3 - Paul is arguing that the law could not bring salvation, but Christ did. He uses a variety of examples, but startes an argument in chapter seven that a woman is bound to her husband by the law until her husband dies, he states:

    For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
    The word here is ἀνὴρ. However, what is also interesting is the word for man in verse three is a form of ἄνδρα, it is ἀνδρὶ, isn't interesting the two words are used in the same passage, but carry different meanings although they are interchangeable? This can be done in english:

    I had a fair amount of money at the county fair, but only faired well in the games and didn't win anything.
    What's the point? Context. In the above sentence fair has three meanings. First one means a mediocre amount, second one means a place with rides and games and the third one means how well someone performed. If I argued for one definition based on the first definition in the dictionary then the sentence wouldn't make any sense. Not only that but not every english dictionary agrees on what should be the primary definition of the word "fair."

    Therefore, you have no basis for arguing andra and aner in Matthew 1:16-19 should be translated "man" simply because it is the primary definition. Doing so seems to ignore the fact the "husband" is included as a definition and context, etc. is important when translating as well as knowledge of the language and definitions of the word.

    Other examples of aner rendered as husband are as so: 1 Corinthians 7:4, 14, 39; Ephesians 5:23; Titus 1:16.

    This point only has emphasis if νυμφίου is used for husband rather than person who is soon to be married and is attending his wedding and if your previous argument about ἀνὴρ was strong, which it isn't. Still, in all the instances I have seen numphios used, it is regarding a man in a wedding ceremony who at some point does transition to husband due to the wedding ceremony. It is never used specifically as or translated as husband. It is always translated bridegroom because the context, whether figuratively or literally, is talking about a wedding and not the post wedding relationship statud of husband and wife.

    See the following passages: Matthew 9:15; 25:1-10; Mark 2:19-20; Luke 5:34-35; John 3:29; Revelation 18:23.

    Also, this argument about whether they were married further becomes a weaker position to hold once you consider Matthew 1:24-25 as others have pointed out which reads from the ESV:

    24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.​

    The Greek here for wife is γυναῖκα which is a form of γυνή which can mean a woman, wife or a lady. It has been translated as wife 71 times and as woman 96 times depending on which Lexicon you use. I am using biblehub since you linked to it in the thread. I've also compared with blueletter which says gyne is translated woman 129 times and as wife 92. The importance, again, is context, etc. when translating.

    Also of importance to this thread are the words ἐγίνωσκεν (knew) and ἕως (until) which show that even in the Greek Joseph and Mary had conjugal relations after the birth of Jesus thus nullifying perputual virginity. Again, before you retort, the importance in translation is in context, etc. Not in arbitrarily translating something. So you have to have a good reason for saying this is a translation error. Remember, also, usage of the word is important as well. Here's another example from English:

    I slept with my wife last night.
    The context is intentionally left vague here to show that the general usage of the word "slept" would warrant one translating this sentence in another langauge with a comparitive thought that my wife and I slept in the same bed together. Now, if I add context:

    I slept with my wife last night and we hope to have a son soon.
    The definition of the word changes to something else which implies a conjugal relationship with hope of offspring.

    The context of Matthew 1:24-25 when compared with the whole of Matthew 1-3 gives weight to the translation and meaning that Joseph not only married Mary, but did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to Jesus, but he did have sexual relations with her. There is no real basis for suggesting otherwise from the text.

    It is evident from elsewhere in scriptures that Mary and Joseph had other children. Others have cited those verses. There is nothing in the text to suggest these are children of Joseph and some other woman, which would've been adultery, or some early woman since Jesus was the first child. Nor is there anything in the text to suggest Mary was Joseph's second, third, fourth, or fifth wife. I'm not saying you said any of this specifically, I'm just pointing these things out.

    Also, because I'm tired of sifting through the thread to find quotes I'll simply address other points made:

    1) Synoptic Gospels are not independent of each other but are interdependent: Going to give a quick answer here but no, this position generally stems from the assertion that Mark was first then Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark's Gospel. Your belief that there is a Hebrew version of Matthew, at least, has been espoused by some scholars, but not widely accepted. Furthermore, there is no manuscript for a Hebrew version of Matthew or any of the other Gospels. Back to independence versus interdependence. The arguments I've read in journals, books, etc. hold very little weight. They all attack events and statements shared between the synoptics that would obviously also be heard and experienced together by the apostles. Mark is writing on behalf of Peter, Matthew writing for himself and Luke on behalf of everyone as he went and investigated everything. It makes no sense to assert that shared experiences and hearing the same homilies from Jesus would somehow indicate they'd write absolutely totally different Gospels. Also, from my research the simple fact Mark is the shortest of the three indicates that Matthew and Luke put more into their Gospels so how could they have possibly copied only from Mark?
    2) Contradictions in the Gospels: I heard it best said by a cold case detective, J. Warner Wallace, that contradictions between eyewitnesses are to be expected. In a crime eyewitnesses report different things in a crime for different reasons such as culture, beliefs, how they handle stress, whether they are male or female, the list goes on. The same thing is to be expected of the eyewitness reports of the Apostles. None of this invalidates their report or the truth that they report, just that they report about it from different vantage points. Not saying you said this.
    3) Bethrohed versus Marriage or ever getting married: Again, scripture is pretty clear that Joseph and Mary got married went on to have conjugal relations between each other and even children after Jesus. Arguing over what bethrohed meant is moot.
    4) Jesus said John would be Mary's son upon his death proves he didn't have siblings: No it doesn't. It only proves he told Mary that John was her son and told John that Mary was his mother. In the same Gospel, John explains his brothers did not believe in him. John 7:5. Word here for brothers is ἀδελφοὶ a form of ἀδελφός and while it can mean brethren or someone close, it can also mean brother. There's no reason to believe in John 7:5 it is talking about something other than brothers. Especially when you add Matthew 13:55-56, which includes his sisters, cross reference with Mark 6:3, add John 7:3 and Galatians 1:19 and the evidence mounts together than Jesus had earthly siblings who were born to Mary and Joseph.
    5) Gospels are not history: Did you mean the Gospels should not be taken as a genre or classification of historical literature? If so, there is some argument against this in academia. If not and you meant the Gospels aren't history then I think you misunderstood the questions raised against this. If the Gospels aren't history then why do we believe the Ressurection? You admitted to believing in that so you believe the Gospels report history, thus this statement seems contradictory unless you elaborate. Are they just stories bringing us the truth, etc.?

    I know this was long. Initially I didn't intend to respond to the thread because I felt responses were good. I just felt a look at how translation is actually done was a good addition to the thread. Forgive any typos and grammatical errors since I am quickly typing this at work.
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2018
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • List
  8. Chrétien de Troyes

    Chrétien de Troyes Member

    418
    +44
    Canada
    Catholic
    Private
    Hello, your objections are good. However, I clarified some things in the thread. Unfortunately I could not change the original message, I do not know why. It is mostly an analysis of the vocabulary used by Matthew and Luke. Then for the interpretation of Origene it's because idiots have burned his books that we know no more. The Virgin Mary symbolizes wisdom. The wisdom in Hellenistic Judaism is the wife of God. Go read the book of wisdom and sirach you will have a lot of information.
     
  9. BroRoyVa79

    BroRoyVa79 Member

    232
    +108
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Constitution
    As I said, I have read and/or skimmed the entirety of the thread and provided responses to much of what was said. Since your position started from the Greek text, I addressed that and brought up translation methods, thus addressing your analysis of the vocabulary.

    Origen is one church father among many. Many of the fathers who started espousing the eternal virgin theory did not come about with their views until the late 3rd and during the 4th century A.D. It wasn't a prominent view held in the 1st century when the Gospels were written.

    I've read the Sirach and Sirach 1 seems to me to be pulling influence from Proverbs 8. It is not an indicator Wisdom is the wife of God nor is it an indicator Mary is Wisdom. It is simply Wisdom personified as in Proverbs 8. The rest of the mentions of wisdom throughout the book also seem to mimic the Proverbs in the sense that wisdom is something that should be sought after and desired because it is a good thing. Not that it is a deity or a being created on equal footing with Jesus or God. Additionally, many argue Wisdom in Proverbs 8 is figuratively speaking of Jesus.
     
  10. Chrétien de Troyes

    Chrétien de Troyes Member

    418
    +44
    Canada
    Catholic
    Private
    It does not matter I'm camping until Friday, when I come back I will provide evidence that the book of wisdom was used in the Gospel of John.
    Then people will accept or not my demonstration, it will not bother me. I am speaking to those who want to understand the Gospel.
     
  11. BroRoyVa79

    BroRoyVa79 Member

    232
    +108
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Constitution
    You brought it up, I provided an answer. Even if you prove the Wisdom of Sirach was used in the book of John, which I wouldn't be surprised would not probably prove what you interpret into it. Jude and Peter quote and/or reference the Book of Enoch so I am not surprised to find out the Apostles referenced or quoted literature of their time such as 2nd Temple Jewish Literature.

    What you would have to prove is that Sirach said Wisdom is the wife of God, which it didn't, and that Mary is Wisdom. Which I suspect will be difficult.

    Edited to add: Enjoy your camping trip.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
    • List
  12. Chrétien de Troyes

    Chrétien de Troyes Member

    418
    +44
    Canada
    Catholic
    Private
    Sorry I was speaking of Sirach and wisdom, not only one. I misspoke.

    Thanks you for your kindness

    Godbless
     
  13. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +33,191
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Yes be safe and have fun on your camping trip. Don't think you have to watch out for alligators in Canada but there may be some bears to watch out for.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
    • List
  14. Chrétien de Troyes

    Chrétien de Troyes Member

    418
    +44
    Canada
    Catholic
    Private
    Thank you to all of you. See you soon. :wave:
     
  15. The Times

    The Times Well-Known Member

    +795
    Eastern Orthodox
    Private
    :wave:
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2018
  16. prodromos

    prodromos Senior Veteran Supporter

    +6,641
    Australia
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    I think it is indicative of evangelical Protestant culture that such an understanding isn't even on your radar.
    Modern Western culture is saturated with sex, and it is difficult for Christians in the West to appreciate anything outside of that paradigm.
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2018
  17. Tutorman

    Tutorman Charismatic Episcopalian

    +1,328
    United States
    Episcopalian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Subterfuge, hardly. Wisdoms comes with age something you are sorely lacking
     
  18. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +33,191
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    That’s interesting.

    However, your argument of comparing a dead woman bearing children with a married man and woman having conjugal relations within wedlock lacks congruence.
     
  19. gordonhooker

    gordonhooker Franciscan tssf Supporter

    +1,040
    Anglican
    Married
    Yea... but the young ones don't realise that yet... :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  20. prodromos

    prodromos Senior Veteran Supporter

    +6,641
    Australia
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    The argument is simply to demonstrate that "until" does not require the state described before to change after the clause. It is just like saying "the children quietly did their work until the teacher returned to the classroom". Did they stop working quietly after the teacher returned? It doesn't say one way or the other.
    A lot of people are acting like Matthew 1:25 is a slam dunk when it isn't.
     
Loading...