Immaculate conception of Mary?

[justinangel]

So you still got nothing to show EV.

In Luke 1:31-33, the angel Gabriel tells Mary that she will conceive and bear the Messiah. Mary is a Jew who expects the Messiah to be of human paternal lineage of the House of David. Thus she asks: How shall this be, seeing I do not know man?" (Luke 1:34). In other words, she questions how she could ever possibly conceive and bear a child if she has no relations with a man. In Luke 1:35, the angel explains how; she will conceive by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Messiah will not be an offspring of Joseph.

In the original Greek text, the verb "to know" is ginṓskō (γινώσκω) which here means "to be sexually intimate". The verb is not in the aorist tense, or else the final letter would be marked ∅. This means that Mary's not being intimate with a man has to do with a condition of hers rather than an instant in time. Mary will conceive the Messiah without having to be sexually intimate with Joseph, which Mary first assumed the angel had meant when he told her that she would conceive and bear a Son.

The couple were already espoused to each other as legal husband and wife, in accordance with the Mosaic Law, when the angel appeared to Mary. So naturally she assumed that Joseph would be the father of Jesus. And, of course, she was conversant with the biological facts of life. Thus in her perplexity she wondered how. The truth is that the couple had already agreed to a chaste marriage because of an oath Mary had sworn ("the oath to afflict herself") to God as a young girl serving in the Temple. Joseph honoured her vow.

 

[Standing Up]

In the original Greek text, the verb "to know" is ginṓskō (γινώσκω) which here means "to be sexually intimate".

No, "to know" is in the present tense. You folks way underestimate Mary.

 

[patricius79]

No, "to know" is in the present tense. You folks way underestimate Mary.

I know that her question makes no sense unless she and Joseph planned to have a celibate marriage, since Gabriel had not told her when she would conceive Jesus Christ.

 

[Standing Up]

I know that her question makes no sense unless she and Joseph planned to have a celibate marriage, since Gabriel had not told her when she would conceive Jesus Christ.

She doesn't say I'll never know a man. She says I don't know a man now.

 

[patricius79]

She doesn't say I'll never know a man. She says I don't know a man now.

She doesn't say I don't know a man now, as you say. She says "How can this be, for I do not know man?". How would this question make sense if she were planning on having relations with St. Joseph, and given that St. Gabriel didn't say when she would conceive Jesus?

 

[bbbbbbb]

She doesn't say I don't know a man now, as you say. She says "How can this be, for I do not know man?". How would this question make sense if she were planning on having relations with St. Joseph, and given that St. Gabriel didn't say when she would conceive Jesus?

It is obvious that the complete conversation was not recorded by Luke. What we do have is a condensed version in which the salient features are recorded. These include Mary's statement that she had not had physical relations with a man, not that she would never, under any circumstances have relations. It also includes the apparent understanding on Mary's part that her pregnancy was imminent, not ninety or 100 years in the future, as was the case with Sarai. In that case, even, the angel's announcement was of an imminent pregnancy despite her extreme age.

 

[Albion]

None of the Gospels record Jesus as having been born in a normal way.

None of them record him as having been born in an abnormal way, either. To dogmatize on the theory that it was abnormal in some pretty way simply illustrates the difference between the churches that base their doctrines on the word of God and those which base it upon Man's speculation. There isn't going to be a reconciliation of the two, no matter how long the dispute continues.

 

[patricius79]

It is obvious that the complete conversation was not recorded by Luke. What we do have is a condensed version in which the salient features are recorded.

How do you know, when the Bible doesn't say that?

These include Mary's statement that she had not had physical relations with a man,

Her words were, "how can this be, since I do not know man?", which make no sense unless she had made a vow of virginity, as the Church teaches.

not that she would never, under any circumstances have relations.

I believe you just states that "the complete conversation was not recorded". So if that's true, how do you know that she didn't say that she was a consecrated virgin?

It also includes the apparent understanding on Mary's part that her pregnancy was, imminent

So was Mary's marriage. So why then would she say, "how can this be since I do not know man?"

 

[patricius79]

None of them record him as having been born in an abnormal way, either. To dogmatize on the theory that it was abnormal in some pretty way simply illustrates the difference between the churches that base their doctrines on the word of God and those which base it upon Man's speculation

I don't think the Bible says that. I think the Church which bases her doctrine on the Word of God (Tradition) is the historic Church.

 

[bbbbbbb]

How do you know, when the Bible doesn't say that?

Her words were, "how can this be, since I do not know man?", which make no sense unless she had made a vow of virginity, as the Church teaches.

I believe you just states that "the complete conversation was not recorded". So if that's true, how do you know that she didn't say that she was a consecrated virgin?

So was Mary's marriage. So why then would she say, "how can this be since I do not know man?"

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that would be written.

I have never taken a vow of virginity and if an angel appeared to me and told me that I was the father of a baby about to be born, I would be shocked and ask him how it could be since I didn't even know the lady in question. One does not need to take a vow of perpetual virginity in order to be a virgin.

 

[patricius79]

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that would be written.

Are you arguing from oral tradition?

I have never taken a vow of virginity and if an angel appeared to me and told me that I was the father of a baby about to be born,

That's not what St. Gabriel said. He said "you will conceive in your womb"

I would be shocked and ask him how it could be since I didn't even know the lady in question. One does not need to take a vow of perpetual virginity in order to be a virgin.

The angel didn't give a timeline in Scripture.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Are you arguing from oral tradition?

That's not what St. Gabriel said. He said "you will conceive in your womb"

The angel didn't give a timeline in Scripture.

In case you failed to understand, John's gospel was written. It is not an oral tradition in any meaning of that term. Can you get this through your head?

 

[Standing Up]

Her words were, "how can this be, since I do not know man?", which make no sense unless she had made a vow of virginity, as the Church teaches.

Your argument is blasphemous. You're saying God was asking someone to reverse a vow they made.

 

[justinangel]

No, "to know" is in the present tense. You folks way underestimate Mary.

The simple present, but not in the aorist form. So the verb is not temporal in aspect. It has to do with Mary's state, not an instant in time. For example, when a person says, "I don't smoke," he means he never smokes. He is not smoking now and has no intention of smoking ever. In other words, he is saying, "I am a non-smoker." Thus when Mary says, "I do not know man," what she means to say is "I am a virgin." She is asking the angel how it could be possible for a virgin to conceive and bear a child. The angel tells her how. I'm afraid you are the one who is underestimating Mary by questioning her decision to live an entirely chaste life dedicated to God. You over-estimate conventional marriage, too.

God would not have chosen Mary to be the mother of our Lord if she intended to have conjugal relations with her husband after the second wedding ceremony (Nisuin), when it was permissible for the couple to co-habit together. Mary belonged to God as his virgin bride and own possession just as Israel had in the figure of Daughter Zion. The angel answers Mary's question by saying, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you." The expressions of laying one's power over a woman (resuth) and overshadowing or laying one's cloak over her ( are Hebrew euphemisms for having marital relations.“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." (Gen. 3:16). Rabbinic scholar and Hebrew convert Brother Anthony Opisso, M.D., tells us that the word "cloak" (tallith), literally "wing" (kannaph) is derived from the word tellal, meaning "shadow". Jesus referred to Israel as his bride when he said: "How many times I yearned to gather your children together as a hen gathers her children under her wing." (Lk 13:34). We read in Ezekiel 16:8: 'Again I passed by you and saw that you were now old enough for love. So I spread the corner of your cloak over you to cover your nakedness; I swore an oath to you and entered into a covenant with you; you became mine, says the Lord.' Ruth intended to have conjugal relations with her lord Boaz when she replied: "I am your handmaid Ruth. Spread the corner of your cloak over me ("cover me with your shadow"), for you are my next of kin." (Ruth 3:9). Hence, Mary was not merely God's servant who was chosen and ordered to produce a Son for Him in the flesh. Their relationship was morally redolent of a marriage in keeping with the Divine law. Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Mt. 5:17).

The truth is that Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit, being in her person the fulfilment of Daughter Zion, from whom came the Divine Messiah. God conducted Himself with Mary as a husband with his wife no less honourably and righteously as He had with Israel in their marriage covenant. The spiritual marital relationship Mary had with God was fully consummated at the precise moment she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. As the personification and fulfilment of Daughter Zion, Mary was divinely declared to be "holy, consecrated, and set apart" for God when she vowed to enter into a personal covenant with Him while still a young temple virgin. Yet she couldn't have fathomed at the time that she felt compelled to make such a vow by the prompting of the Holy Spirit because she was predestined to be the mother of our Lord. And so the covenant between God and Mary was forever ratified when she delcared to the angel, "Behold, the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word" (Lk 1:38). Being under the authority of her Divine Spouse, and not that of a husband who descended from fallen Adam, Mary could not have given birth to Jesus "in painful labour".

The angel Gabriel spoke to Joseph in a dream after he discovered Mary was with child to reassure him that his wife hadn’t done anything unfaithful, but that the child she was carrying was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. (Mt.1 18-25). Until then Joseph had the legal right to file for divorce on the grounds of his wife’s alleged promiscuity. In fact, he had the right to publicly condemn her and have her stoned to death for having committed adultery (Deut. 22:22-29). But upon the angel’s visit the table had turned. Now Joseph had to consider whether he had any legal and moral right to go through with the second wedding ceremony, since his wife Mary had conceived a child by another Person. We know that he was a just man who faithfully observed the precepts of the Mosaic law (Mt.1:14). However, the angel relieved Joseph of his fear when he instructed him to take Mary into his home as his lawful wife, but not to normally co-habit with her: “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife” (Mt. 1:20). In the Greek translation from the original Hebrew, the prepositional phrase “to take home as your wife” reads paralambano gunaika. There was no need for the angel to tell Joseph that he shouldn’t be afraid to “come together” with his wife (bo-e-lei-ha imma) or “lay with” her (vai-yish-kav imma) (Gen. 30:3, 16-17), since the couple had already agreed on having a chaste marriage. But Joseph should know that their marriage was still valid before God for the reason that they shall not have conjugal relations and any children of their own following Mary’s conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit. Thus he mustn't be afraid to formally solemnize their legal marriage in fear of violating the Divine law. Christians who can't accept this underestimate God's holiness and put into question God's faithfulness to Himself. In fact, they don't really know God.

And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
Revelation 12, 1

 

[justinangel]

Your argument is blasphemous. You're saying God was asking someone to reverse a vow they made.

When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary, the couple hadn't yet solemnized their marriage. The Nisuin follows the Kiddushin ceremony. God was sure not to offer His proposal after the marriage had been formally solemnized. What is blasphemous is to think that God would form an adulterous marriage with Mary by begetting a child with a married woman who had already vowed to consummate her marriage with her husband. The vow of consummation hadn't been made yet when the angel appeared to Mary. The couple were only legally married pending the Nisuin (Luke 1:27). Still, Mary and Joseph had initially agreed on having a chaste marriage, which wasn't unheard of, though rare, in ancient Israel.

Numbers 30

Vows Taken by a Married Woman

"And if she is married to a husband, while under her vows or any thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she has bound herself, and her husband hears of it, and says nothing to her on the day that he hears; then her vows shall stand, and her pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand. But if, on the day that her husband comes to hear of it, he expresses disapproval, then he shall make void her vow which was on her, and the thoughtless utterance of her lips, by which she bound herself; and the LORD will forgive her."

Vows to "Afflict Herself"

"Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void. But if her husband says nothing to her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows, or all her pledges, that are upon her; he has established them, because he said nothing to her on the day that he heard of them. But if he makes them null and void after he has heard of them, then he shall bear her iniquity."

Torah scholar Jacob Milgrom informs us that the woman's vow "to afflict herself" meant fasting and abstaining from sexual relations to ancient Jews. Judith may have made such a vow after her encounter with God. She never remarried at her young age after her husband died and left her childless probably because of her personal relationship with God. Moses remained continent in his marriage for the rest of his life once God summoned him to do His will. Provisions such as these were made under Mosaic law. Vows like these which were taken by women were permissible, since the command to propagate strictly applied only to men. If Joseph agreed on having a chaste marriage with his wife Mary, it would be because he chose to honour her vow which was made before they had met. Meanwhile there is no statute that condemns a man for having sinned by honouring his intended wife's vow. Nor is there any directive for him to abort the initial wedding ceremony upon hearing of the vow. Joseph did have the option to either cancel or go through with the Kiddushin. He would have sinned if he had first accepted the vow and then tried to nullify it.

"And I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, and in love, and in mercy. I will betroth you to me in faithfulness; and you shall know the Lord."
Hosea 2,19-20

 

[justinangel]

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that would be written.

I have never taken a vow of virginity and if an angel appeared to me and told me that I was the father of a baby about to be born, I would be shocked and ask him how it could be since I didn't even know the lady in question. One does not need to take a vow of perpetual virginity in order to be a virgin.

You would be shocked if an angel appeared to you and said that you were the father of a baby that had been conceived by a woman whom you never had intercourse with. But the angel does not tell Mary that she has conceived. Nor does he even remotely suggest that Mary will conceive the child that instant. The verb 'to be' (estai) is in the future tense. He says, "you will conceive and bear a son." Meanwhile, Mary knew who her husband was. So if she had planned to have a child with him in the future, she wouldn't have asked how it could be possible that she would have a son. She certainly knew the biological facts of life, being about 15 years old at the time.

 

[Standing Up]

The simple present, but not in the aorist form. So the verb is not temporal in aspect.

You're confused. The aorist may not have a temporal aspect. The present is present time.

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this [pregnancy] be [future], seeing I know not [present] a man?

"The future tense corresponds to the English future, and indicates the contemplated or certain occurrence of an event which has not yet occurred.

The present tense represents a simple statement of fact or reality viewed as occurring in actual time. In most cases this corresponds directly with the English present tense."
blueletterbible.org

There's zero sense of the aorist or perfect tense "The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated." which is isn't now and will never be.

We've been over this. Time to move on.

 

[Standing Up]

When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary, the couple hadn't yet solemnized their marriage.

As usual, you've missed the point. It was about some so-called vow.

 

[Arsenios]

How do you determine what was passed on orally by Paul, so as to follow Scripture's teaching?

That's the question isn't it. The only way to know with certainty is scripture (it is written). The rest is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you'll get.

I think that there is a way out of your agnosticism with regard to this Scripture given by Paul to us...

For instance: Paul established many Churches, and these in turn more and more, and also Churches were planted by all the Apostles in the first century, and a whole lot of them still exist. And they do have differences, being geographically spread across cultures...

So...

IF...

You simply compile a list of doctrinal and praxeological similarities in which ALL the Churches AGREE, then you should have a very good idea of what the oral traditions were, and more than that, what the practice [praxis] of the Faith of Jesus Christ actually LOOKED LIKE...

Whatchat'ink?

Arsenios

 

[Standing Up]

I think that there is a way out of your agnosticism with regard to this Scripture given by Paul to us...

For instance: Paul established many Churches, and these in turn more and more, and also Churches were planted by all the Apostles in the first century, and a whole lot of them still exist. And they do have differences, being geographically spread across cultures...

So...

IF...

You simply compile a list of doctrinal and praxeological similarities in which ALL the Churches AGREE, then you should have a very good idea of what the oral traditions were, and more than that, what the practice [praxis] of the Faith of Jesus Christ actually LOOKED LIKE...

Whatchat'ink?

Arsenios

Ok believe I've done that and ended with RC and EO. Now what?