Immaculate conception of Mary?

[Arsenios]

Okay, show EV from Paul's time.

When Gabriel came to the Blessed Virgin and told her she would bear a child, her reply was:

How can this be, because I am not knowing a man."

Now IF she were betrothed, and she was, was not this an utterly inappropriate reply? She is betrothed, and someone tells her, this angel tells her, she will have a kid... What is the big whup? Ya get married, ya have kids. Her reply should have been, if YOUR version is correct: "So big deal, I mean, don't most of us betrothed couples have kids?"

But instead she replies with incredulity:

"HOW CAN this BE???"

Her problem was not bearing a son of the Most High...

Her ONLY problem involved her lifelong commitment to her virginity...

THAT is why, as a 13 year old girl entering into puberty, the old widower Joseph took on as his betrothed, knowing her dedication to God and her desire to pursue God without carnal limitations...

And so when she said to the angel:

"Because I AM NOT KNOWING a man,"

She is declaring in the ongoing present a permanent state of affairs, and not merely the normal pre-marital virginity of a proper Jewish girl...

It is all right there...

It needs to be unpacked...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

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

No need to omit the Oriental Orthodox, and the Copts, and the Ethopians, and the Arminians...

They all had doctrinal differences, and separated from one another or from us or from Rome, but IF you look at what they all hold in common in doctrine and practice, you will see what was 'traditioned' orally AND discernible in Scripture...

For instance, all teach purification of the heart...
In Scripture, we find the Beattitude regarding it:
Blessed are the pure in heart...
And they all prescribe the means of repentance to attain it...
And they disciple HOW to cleanse the heart from the passions...

And on and on...

Salvation in these Churches is not doctrinal, but is praxeological, centered on combating sin within one's own soul...

Arsenios

 

[Standing Up]

When Gabriel came to the Blessed Virgin and told her she would bear a child, her reply was:

How can this be, because I am not knowing a man."

Now IF she were betrothed, and she was, was not this an utterly inappropriate reply? She is betrothed, and someone tells her, this angel tells her, she will have a kid... What is the big whup? Ya get married, ya have kids. Her reply should have been, if YOUR version is correct: "So big deal, I mean, don't most of us betrothed couples have kids?"

But instead she replies with incredulity:

"HOW CAN this BE???"

Her problem was not bearing a son of the Most High...

Her ONLY problem involved her lifelong commitment to her virginity...

THAT is why, as a 13 year old girl entering into puberty, the old widower Joseph took on as his betrothed, knowing her dedication to God and her desire to pursue God without carnal limitations...

And so when she said to the angel:

"Because I AM NOT KNOWING a man,"

She is declaring in the ongoing present a permanent state of affairs, and not merely the normal pre-marital virginity of a proper Jewish girl...

It is all right there...

It needs to be unpacked...

Arsenios

If what you say were accurate, the perfect tense would have been used. I don't know a man and never will is your interpretation of events. Rather, it was the present tense. How will I get pregnant since I don't know a man?

 

[Standing Up]

No need to omit the Oriental Orthodox, and the Copts, and the Ethopians, and the Arminians...

They all had doctrinal differences, and separated from one another or from us or from Rome, but IF you look at what they all hold in common in doctrine and practice, you will see what was 'traditioned' orally AND discernible in Scripture...

For instance, all teach purification of the heart...
In Scripture, we find the Beattitude regarding it:
Blessed are the pure in heart...
And they all prescribe the means of repentance to attain it...
And they disciple HOW to cleanse the heart from the passions...

And on and on...

Salvation in these Churches is not doctrinal, but is praxeological, centered on combating sin within one's own soul...

Arsenios

Ok. So we want to boil down salvation to a few beliefs/practices. I'm all for it. We'll forget Papacy, priest/sacrifice, nature of Mary, etc. Return to our roots. Do you think it possible?

 

[justinangel]

You're confused.

You're in denial.

The aorist may not have a temporal aspect. The present is present time.

In non-indicative forms of the aorist, there are infinitives and imperatives that don't imply temporality: "Give (δός dós) us this day our daily bread." (Mt. 6:11). The simple present verb ginōskō in Luke 1:34 is in the active indicative mood. The aorist is a different verb tense which is used to denote past actions in the indicative mood. Mary has no relations with a man, but somehow she will conceive and bear a son. She wonders how she will, in view of the fact that she is a virgin.The indicative mood is a statement of fact or an actual occurrence from the writer's or speaker's perspective. And Mary does not say that she has not known a man., but rather she does not know a man.

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

Mary is not saying that she does not know a man now. She doesn't have to be presently having relations with her husband, in violation of the Mosaic Law, to conceive and bear a son at some indefinite future time. The angel doesn't even remotely suggest that the conception of Jesus will be immediate.

"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

So? Someone might ask his fortune teller after he has been told that he will die of lung cancer: "How shall this be, since I don't smoke?" In the Gospel, the conjunction ἐπεὶ (since) connects the first clause with the second one. It carries a causative implication, that being Mary must know a man in order to conceive and bear a son. So the question is by what manner will Mary conceive and bear a son in view of the fact that she is a virgin (active indicative mood). The angel explains how in the following verse.

In the Greek, we have the same perpetual present γινώσκω in the following texts along with Luke.

Luke 1:34 V-PIA-1S
BIB: ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω
KJV: be, seeing I know not a man?
INT: a man not I know

John 10:14 V-PIA-1S
BIB: καλός καὶ γινώσκω τὰ ἐμὰ
NAS: shepherd, and I know My own
KJV: shepherd, and know my [sheep], and
INT: good and I know those that [are] my

John 10:15 V-PIA-1S
BIB: πατὴρ κἀγὼ γινώσκω τὸν πατέρα
NAS: knows Me and I know the Father;
KJV: me, even so know I the Father:
INT: Father I also know the Father

John 10:27 V-PIA-1S
BIB: ἀκούουσιν κἀγὼ γινώσκω αὐτά καὶ
NAS: My voice, and I know them, and they follow
KJV: voice, and I know them, and
INT: hear and I know them and

Acts 19:15 V-PIA-1S
BIB: μὲν Ἰησοῦν γινώσκω καὶ τὸν
NAS: and said to them, I recognize Jesus,
KJV: and said, Jesus I know, and Paul
INT: even Jesus I know and "

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.

But the original Greek text does not have Mary say, "I have not known man." In the indicative mood the aorist tense refers to an action that occurred in the past. It is because Luke is concerned with Mary's state rather than an instant in time, he uses the present active indicative. The present tense usually denotes continuous kind of action. It shows 'action in progress' or 'a state of persistence.' When used in the indicative mood, the present tense denotes action taking place or going on in the present time. What is going on at the present time (Mary not knowing man) is related to a future event (the conception of a child). And there is tension in this relation between the present and the future. I apologize if I failed to explain this more clearly. I don't mean to say that there is an aorist tense in the indicative mood that denotes a present action, but that Luke doesn't use a tense that denotes the past in the indicative mood.

In the Greek language, the idea of the perfect tense is that the progress of an action has been completed and the results of the action are continuing on, in full effect (Luke 1:28). In other words, the progress of the action has reached its culmination and the finished results are now in existence. Unlike the English perfect, which indicates a completed past action, the Greek perfect tense indicates the continuation and present state of a completed past action.

[cf. http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/inter-tense.htm]

 

[Arsenios]

If what you say were accurate, the perfect tense would have been used.

Actually, only the present tense will do what is being done here... The ongoing present - eg "I am not knowing a man..." - establishes an ongoing policy. The perfect would describe a prior decision and its consequences, and can be revised in the present... The aorist would simply describe a past decision... Both are subject to revision in the present... But the ongoing present is the ongoing decision to not be knowing a man... And this decision She has had from Her earliest beginnings, because from her earliest beginnings, She has been inwardly, and not outwardly, directed... It is this inward focus of Her person from the git-go of Her birth, which we all have but turn away from, but which she retained fully, that differentiates and elevates her to the New Eve... She is an awesome person, who lived an awesome life, who is still in the world in the Church that IS Her in a very mysterious way, for she is the GYNE, the Woman, through Whom Christ was pleased, as the New Adam, taking up where the Old Adam fell, to enter into the creation which He had created. This event in itself, His very entire presence within Her holy womb until birth, elevated her to a condition of being that we who do not and can not do such a thing, can only stand in awe of...

She is, in the Church, the Woman persecuted by the Dragon in Revelation...

I don't know a man and never will is your interpretation of events.

It is the meaning of the Greek present tense used in this context.

A betrothed woman SHOULD EXPECT children, do you not agree? As soon as the marriage is established, then conjugal relations begin, and children are the consequence...

Yet...

What does she say?

"How can this be?" [that I will bear a child]

And she does not say: "Because I have not known a man."

Because that is expected - Marrying virgins was the norm...

But instead she says: "Because I AM NOT KNOWING a man..."

Now - If you want the REAL proof, I can offer you the "angel slap" defense of the EV...

Remember what happened to Zacharias when HE questioned the Angel?

And every OTHER poor spiritual slob who question a message from God?

It did NOT turn out all that well, did it?

But the Angel did NO SUCH THING to HER for Her question...

He simply gave Her answer as She had so simply asked...

There is a LOT of unpacking to do in this pericope...

Rather, it was the present tense.
How will I get pregnant since I don't know a man?

How can a betrothed woman about to get married say such an inane thing?

By normal virginal standards, she is about to get married and have kids...

Such a reply as you have her making is simply a non-sequitur...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Ok. So we want to boil down salvation to a few beliefs/practices.

It is important to keep context. We were discussing oral traditions handed alongside, from person to person...

The proper answer for both the Eastern Catholics, the Western Catholics, and the Oriental Catholics, is: "Enter into the discipleship of the Church to find out." And that is a perfectly Biblical answer, because Christ said:
"Go...
Be ye discipling all the Nations...
Teaching them ALL that I have commanded you...
To be meticulously observing...
Baptizing them...
In the Name...
Of he Father...
And of the Son...
And of the Holy Spirit..."

I'm all for it. We'll forget Papacy, priest/sacrifice, nature of Mary, etc. Return to our roots. Do you think it possible?

You are being a little flip here, but one of the things we must keep close to our hearts is that Christianity is a God-Quest, or it is nothing but words... By ALL the other Christian Churches in the world except the Latins and their western Communion, the Papacy of Rome was a position of honor, not headship and rule over the Body of Christ. There have been priests from the beginning - The nature of Mary as the Bride of Christ, through and in Whom we find our Salvation in the Church, is worthy of great labors... It is through Her that Christ entered His creation, and it is through Her that we enter Christ... And yes, there are exceptions - eg the Thief on the Cross, etc...

So that if you are not entered on the great struggle in which the quest of the human spirit for God is daily engaged, you do need to pause and look around and refocus your efforts... And there are some who are engaged in that very struggle unawares... Each person is different... And yet God is always the same...

Arsenios

 

[Standing Up]

The simple present [tense] verb ginōskō in Luke 1:34

There you go. You've refuted yourself.

 

[Arsenios]

Return to our roots.
Do you think it possible?

Do you remember what happened ( Matt 21:19 ) with the fig tree which was bearing a lot of leaves but no fruit? That is the condition of the Western Church generally today... Lots of leaves [papers and conferences and studies and logical proofs] but no fruit [Saints, Wonder-workers, Prophets, Apostles, Healers, etc.]

The Faith given once, for all, to the Apostles, was not given in part, but was given in FULL...

It is STILL being given in full...

Arsenios

 

[Standing Up]

Actually, only the present tense will do what is being done here... The ongoing present - eg "I am not knowing a man..." - establishes an ongoing policy. The perfect would describe a prior decision and its consequences, and can be revised in the present...

Okay, and that was your position (perfect). Mary made a vow in the past, is keeping it currently, and will keep it in the future.

Rather, she responds how will I get pregnant (future), since I don't know a man (present). She's not dumb. She knows first comes knowing, then comes pregnancy.

 

[Standing Up]

It is important to keep context. We were discussing oral traditions handed alongside, from person to person...

The proper answer for both the Eastern Catholics, the Western Catholics, and the Oriental Catholics, is: "Enter into the discipleship of the Church to find out." And that is a perfectly Biblical answer, because Christ said:
"Go...
Be ye discipling all the Nations...
Teaching them ALL that I have commanded you...
To be meticulously observing...
Baptizing them...
In the Name...
Of he Father...
And of the Son...
And of the Holy Spirit..."

So, you don't have traditions extant from Paul's time that made it through. You don't agree in the minimalist theology. Not sure your flip-flopping point.

 

[Standing Up]

The Faith given once, for all, to the Apostles, was not given in part, but was given in FULL...

It is STILL being given in full...

Arsenios

True enough, though not merely in EO.

 

[Arsenios]

There you go. You've refuted yourself.

Helpfulness is a good thing...

So do you not think that γινωσκω is an ongoing present tense verb of continuous action...

That would seem to be what was written...

Did I miss something?

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

So, you don't have traditions extant from Paul's time that made it through.

We have the Churches Paul established, and the Churches the other Apostles established, and the Churches that these Churches established, consistently passing alongside from person to person the teachings which Christ commanded, and which Paul taught. The variation is very minimal... Ekklesiologically very specifically essential, but the broader teachings, which concern you now because you are not a member of these Churches, are homogenious...

You don't agree in the minimalist theology.

Aw' c'mon!

You are an American, yes?

Do you REALLY want the teensey little sissy piece tid-bit when you can have the Full Meal Deal??

Not sure your flip-flopping point.

Might be - Ya want the Faith? Or you want neo-scholastic non-contradiction?

But to answer your quesiton: Yes, we are MAXimalists, not MINimalists...

Insofar as we have strength...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Okay, and that was your position (perfect). Mary made a vow in the past, is keeping it currently, and will keep it in the future.

Rather, she responds how will I get pregnant (future), since I don't know a man (present). She's not dumb. She knows first comes knowing, then comes pregnancy.

Here is the essential Greek text, and I will give you a wooden transliteration - The Angel speaks:

BYZ –
και ιδου
And behold -

συλληψη εν γαστρι
You shall conceive in (your) womb

και τεξη υιον
And you shall birth a Son

και καλεσεις το ονομα αυτου ιησουν
And you shall call the Name of Him, Jesus

....

BYZ –
ειπεν δε μαριαμ προς τον αγγελον
Replied now Mariam to the Angel

πως εσται τουτο
How is to be this?

επει ανδρα
Because a man

ου
Not

γινωσκω
Am I knowing.

She is clearly telling the Angel that,
betrothal or no betrothal,
marriage or no marriage,
SHE is NOT KNOWING a MAN.

The angel has been rebuked, (by normal standards, mind you!) but answers her clearly, and affirms that she is not to be knowing a man in order that this conception and birth take place... So he does not strike he dumb as he did Zacharias and other "signs" to others...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Okay, and that was your position (perfect).

Not (perfect) but present ongoing...

When a Greek tells you he is not eating camel dung, you can infer a lot of things from that statement, but it does not mean that he previously made a decision to not eat it. He may very well have made such a decision, and he just as well might have just seen it erupting forth from the camel, and in this statement is making the decision: "I am NOT eating camel dung!"

Mary made a vow in the past, is keeping it currently, and will keep it in the future.

I think it must be the Greek. When a Greek uses the present tense of "knowing", whether carnal or cerebral, he means an ongoing action, or in this case inaction, that means: "In the present for as long as I can foresee, I am doing or not doing the action which the verb denotes..."

In this case, we can safely conclude with you that she did indeed make such a decision in the past and is indeed keeping it currently, and given the nature of that decision, and the manner it was expressed to the Angel, and the manner in which it was received by the Angel, that it will indeed be, and indeed was, kept across Her Holy Life...

Rather, she responds how will I get pregnant (future), since I don't know a man (present). She's not dumb. She knows first comes knowing, then comes pregnancy.

Exactly right...

Yet exactly wrong by earthly standards of betrothal, yes? For by those standards, she is ABOUT TO BE KNOWN by Her future husband... And then shall she conceive and birth children... But THAT was NOT what was going on in that marriage AT ALL...

Indeed, it was the exact reverse...

To conceal the identity of Her Child...

Arsenios

 

[justinangel]

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

The vow I understood you meant was the couple's marriage vow. If you mean Mary's vow of chastity to God, He never asked her to reverse it. Meanwhile, the vow to consummate the marriage with the signing of the ketubah is made at the second wedding ceremony (Nisuin) which formally solemnizes the marriage. When the angel appeared to Mary, she was legally married to Joseph, but the ceremony of solemnization was still pending. God would not have appraoched Mary after this point. Finally, I cited Numbers 30 to show how Mary and Joseph could have agreed to a chaste marriage according to Mosaic law. If I've missed the point, then kindly explain how.

 

[Arsenios]

The vow I understood you meant was the couple's marriage vow. If you mean Mary's vow of chastity to God, He never asked her to reverse it. Meanwhile, the vow to consummate the marriage with the signing of the ketubah is made at the second wedding ceremony (Nisuin) which formally solemnizes the marriage. When the angel appeared to Mary, she was legally married to Joseph, but the ceremony of solemnization was still pending. God would not have appraoched Mary after this point. Finally, I cited Numbers 30 to show how Mary and Joseph could have agreed to a chaste marriage according to Mosaic law. If I've missed the point, then kindly explain how.

Nice post -

As well, there are secondary, historical texts which establish that Joseph was elderly and a widower, and fully understood the decision of virginity in which Mariam was to live, but that at puberty, she would have to leave the Temple and marry, and so he agreed to do so with her, and while betrothed, he found her to be with Child... And rightfully he wrongly understood her pregnancy, and was straightened out in a dream... She came out from the Temple fully committed to a life with God alone at the onset of her puberty...

Most do not understand her young age at the time of Christ's Birth, about 14, nor do they understand Joseph's old age and widowhood... Most protestants think she was just an average, nice Jewish girl who got a lucky break, and you Latins think she got special Grace which we don't get in order to live a life worthy of becoming the Mother of our Lord and God...

Arsenios

 

[justinangel]

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

I will never know a man amounts to saying I know not a man. A non-smoker who says: "I don't smoke" (Present Indicative Active) means that he never smokes and is not smoking now. If he were to ask a fortune teller after receiving a grim forecast: How will I die of lung cancer, since I don't smoke,? he further means that he has no intention of ever smoking. If he intended to start smoking,he wouldn't ask the question How. The thought of eventually consuming tobacco would certainly cross his mind if he intended to start smoking. He could even ask himself whether he might start smoking after all. But presently he affirms that he is a non-smoker. He never smokes and is not smoking now. He does not smoke. Because he doesn't smoke, how shall he die of lung cancer? Similarly, because (epei) Mary doesn't know man, how shall she conceive Jesus? Shall Mary no longer intend not to have marital relations with Joseph? Not at all! She will conceive Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Allow me to make this verse clearer to you. The original Greek text reads: andra ou ginosko, which literally is "man not I know" or in English "I know not man." The Greek verb ginosko (PIA) is in the continuous present which shows a permanent disposition with regard to the verb in question: to not know man. Mary has a permanent disposition to not know man, just as the man who says "I don't smoke" has a permanent disposition not to smoke. The verb "to know" in the Gospel is a Jewish idiom which has to do with sexual relations between a man and a woman. So idiomatically, Mary is actually telling the angel: "I don't have sex with man." Now this Jewish idiom for sexual relations is subject to the same rules of grammar as any other verb is. The verb "to know" may be conjugated in the past tense. We read in Genesis 4:1: 'And Adam knew Eve his wife who conceived and brought forth Cain.' In other words, "Adam had sex with Eve who conceived and brought forth Cain." Eve conceived Cain because she had sex with Adam. But Mary does not have sex with man, so she wonders how she will conceive Jesus. She tells the angel: "I don't have sex with man." She never has sex, and she is not having sex at the present time. Mary is no different from the non-smoker. She has a permanent disposition to not have sex, just as the non-smoker has a permanent disposition not to smoke. It is Mary's permanent disposition and will not to have sex, which explains why she asks the angel how she could possibly ever conceive a child.

The KJV is right in that the verb "to know" is in the Present Indicative Active, but it is wrong with the insertion of the indefinite article "a" before "man", which we don't have in Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The inclusion of this grammatical exponent can create a misunderstanding of God's written word. The object in Mary's statement is andra, which means "man", or more precisely the genre of the male sex. What it does not signify is an individual male, who in this case would be Joseph. The KJV mistranslation has led to readings like this one: "I do not have a husband." However, we read in Luke 1:27 that Mary was betrothed (espoused) to Joseph at the appointed time. The couple were already legally married, having observed the first marriage ceremony (Kiddushin). They were in fact husband and wife at the time of the Annunciation, which explains why Joseph was in a position to divorce Mary as soon as he discovered she was pregnant. Andra can mean "husband" (John 4:17), but Mary does not say: "I have no husband," since she has one already.

Neither does Mary say: "I am a virgin," which I've found in a Protestant Bible. Being a virgin (parthenos) does not signify a permanent disposition and intention in and of itself. A woman who has no intention of having sexual relations with any man could still lose her virginity by being raped. But once she has been raped and has lost her virginity, she could still intend not having sex with any man if that were her original intention. A virgin may also intend to have sexual relations with a man, but only once she has been married. As we know, Mary was wed to Joseph, so if she had intended to conceive children with her husband upon consummating their marriage, she would not have asked the angel how she will become pregnant.. She asks her question, not because she is a virgin, but because she does not have sexual relations with the male sex:"I do not know man." "I do not have sex with man." What Mary doesn't say is "I haven't had sex with my husband yet" or either "I don't have sex with my husband." Grammatically and semantically, the statement andra ou ginosko doesn't allow such interpretations. The object noun andra does not refer to individual males. There is another word for individual men, which is anthropos. It refers to the entire human race or an individual male (Matthew 8:9). So the indefinite article does precede anthropos when referring to an individual man.Many Protestants claim that the dogma of the PVM either contradicts the Scriptures (the feeble "brothers of Jesus" supposition) or is unsupported by them (no explicit evidence), but that's only because they have drawn inferences based on mistranslated texts. When reading Luke 1:34, we must strictly keep to the grammar and vocabulary of the text, heed the Hebrew colloquialism in Mary's speech, and observe the whole context of the dialogue between Mary and the angel.

A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring dried up, a fountain sealed.
Songs of Solomon 4, 12

 

[Arsenios]

The KJV is right in that the verb "to know" is in the Present Indicative Active, but it is wrong with the insertion of the indefinite article "a" before "man", which we don't have in Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The inclusion of this grammatical exponent can create a misunderstanding of God's written word. The object in Mary's statement is andra, which means "man", or more precisely the genre of the male sex. What it does not signify is an individual male, who in this case would be Joseph. The KJV mistranslation has led to readings like this one: "I do not have a husband." However, we read in Luke 1:27 that Mary was betrothed (espoused) to Joseph at the appointed time. The couple were already legally married, having observed the first marriage ceremony (Kiddushin). They were in fact husband and wife at the time of the Annunciation, which explains why Joseph was in a position to divorce Mary as soon as he discovered she was pregnant. Andra can mean "husband" (John 4:17), but Mary does not say: "I have no husband," since she has one already.

What a great post, and I OWE YOU for the generic male of ανδρα, which almost forces the indefinite article ANY upon the text. It still ALLOWS the "a", but the "a" is by far the weaker and more exceptional gloss. I had missed the implication of aner, thinking it in the classic sense of "real man" or "adult male" vs the "generic humanity" of anthropos...

So thank-you for your thoughtfulness and acumen...

But proofs logical and linguistic did not bring Christ to this earth,
Nor do they determine His deeds here...
For they are philosophic...
And the Faith is Revealed...
Because Philosophy failed...
To know the Logos...
As a Person...
But instead bethought Him...
To be but a principle...
Of the nature of things...
Accounting for their changes...
Giving them intelligibility...


Arsenios