Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[CaliforniaJosiah]

IMO, this deletion of the present tense and then insertion of the future perfect indicates nothing except a willingness (and necessity) to CHANGE what the text says.


It also indicates a desertion of Catholic Tradition (which I was told by Catholics pre-dates the concept that Mary had no sex ever) - that the Incarnation and the Annunication happened TOGETHER - at the same time - which is why the RCC and EOC both celebrate the Annunciation exactly 9 months to the day before Christmas. IF this ancient Tradition is true, then Mary's question IN THE PRESENT TENSE (the original - before the RCC "interpreters" deleted that and replaced it with a future perfect verb) makes perfect and natural sense: "How can this be since I AM a virgin?" (PRESENT active tense). IF She wrongly understood that this Incarnation would be 25 years in the future, after She was united with her husband and had a plethora of children, then why would She ask the question about the PRESENT, about today? The natural sense of the actual word in the text (which I realize, Catholics just delete and replace) does NOTHING to support that Mary took some (as yet entirely undocumented) mysterious "vow" or supports that Mary died (or not) as a virgin, that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.

What deletion?

Of the PRESENT ACTIVE. Then, in its place, inserting into the text the FUTURE PERFECT in order to make the dogma seem to conform to the text.

At the present time when Mary is told she will conceive a child, she responds "I am a virgin".

Right.

It has nothing to do about her state of such at the moment of her undeath and all the time until and through then. Exactly. The verb is present active, not future perfect.

Her response makes no sense if she had intended to have any children in the future.

Her response makes no sense if she expects the Incarnation to be in the distant future. It only makes sense IF the ancient Catholic Tradition is true: the Incarnation and the Annunication happened TOGETHER, at the same time, on the same day (which is why you celebrated both on March 25).

Your prejudice against Catholicism

Absurd.






.

 

[LOCO]

*watches the goalposts moving in amusement*

me too

Eating my popcorn and enjoying the shifting show

 

[justinangel]

Of the PRESENT ACTIVE. Then, in its place, inserting into the text the FUTURE PERFECT in order to make the dogma seem to conform to the text.

"I do not know a man" is a present active form of declaration in the negative. You'll find the same words in the KJV. Mary does not say "I will not have known a man by the time I will conceive the child". Obviously Mary knew that she would be a virgin until she conceives the Messiah by Joseph, what she understood the angel to mean. And the angel gave no indication as to excatly when the child would be born, which could have upset Mary's intention to remain a virgin for a specified length of time and clarify what she meant by asking how. "But how shall this be, since I intend to remain a virgin for two more years. And you want me to conceive the child before then?" Take it from a middle school English teacher: Please review your English grammar.

It has nothing to do about her state of such at the moment of her undeath and all the time until and through then. Exactly. The verb is present active, not future perfect.

It has everything to do with her permanent (constantly present) state, since the angel doesn't say "You have conceived." He says "You will conceive." It makes no difference now whether Mary is a virgin if she will conceive some time in the future after she is no longer a virgin. So if she planned to have children with Joseph, she wouldn't have asked the angel "How?" The expression "I do not know a man" is the simple present in active form which in the negative can be paraphrased "I am a virgin". So what's your point about deletions being made? The future perfect tense refers to an action or state that will be completed or come to an end in the future. Mary does not ask the angel "How shall this be, since I will not have known a man by the time I conceive the child?" or "How shall this be, since I will have been a virgin by the time I conceive the child?" There's no point for Mary to tell what is obvious, that she will be a virgin until she conceives Jesus, whether or not she intended to have children after him. For she expected the Messiah to have a biological father.

Her response makes no sense if she expects the Incarnation to be in the distant future. It only makes sense IF the ancient Catholic Tradition is true: the Incarnation and the Annunication happened TOGETHER, at the same time, on the same day (which is why you celebrated both on March 25).

Mary wasn't informed of the miraculous conception until after she had asked the question to the angel. And what she learned had answered her question and satisfied her. The child was then conceived upon her free consent. Her response makes no sense if she intended to have her own children with Joseph, which would include Jesus by her understanding. The Messiah was expected to be a human being, not a divine Person in the flesh. Is this so hard to see?

The dialogue between Mary and the angel Gabriel proceeds in time from one instant to the next. That it takes place on the same day is irrelevant.

Absurd.

If not a personal bias, what then?

Pax Christu
J.A.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

Of the PRESENT ACTIVE. Then, in its place, inserting into the text the FUTURE PERFECT in order to make the dogma seem to conform to the text.


.

"I do not know a man"

Right. It has NOTHING to do with her status as such at the moment of Her death (or undeath, depending on your view there) and continuously up to and including that. Thus, it has NOTHING to so with the DOGMA of Mary Had No Sex EVER.

And the angel gave no indication as to excatly when the child would be born

Exactly. There goes your apologetic. There's NOTHING here about perpetuity.

However, Mary responses in the PRESENT ACTIVE, not future perfect. It is thus possible that ancient Catholic Tradition is correct and that Mary CORRECTLY understood that the Incarnation and Anunnciation happened TOGETHER, on the same day, which is why you celebrated the Annunciation on March 25 - exactly 9 months before Christmas. Have you considered that Catholic Tradition might be correct and that's why She responded in the PRESENT tense?

"But how shall this be, since I intend to remain a virgin for two more years.

You need to read the text you keep referencing.




.

It has everything to do with her permanent (constantly present) state, since the angel doesn't say "You have conceived." He says "You will conceive."

Of course, the angel gives the announcement in the future tense - which could grammatically mean one micro-second in the future. The ancient Catholic Tradition is that the prophecy was fulfilled in Her hearing, thus since before there was any Dogma of Mary Had No Sex Ever, Catholics were embracing the Tradition that the Incarnation and the Annunciation happened TOGETHER, on the same day, March 25. Catholics STILL embrace that Tradition to this day. IF it's true, then Mary's reply in the present active not only makes perfect sense but is theologically point on.

It makes no difference now whether Mary is a virgin if she will conceive some time in the future after she is no longer a virgin.

True, but She doesn't ask about 30 years in the future after She had joined with Joseph and had a plethora of kids. She asks about NOW. Right now. Maybe you think She SHOULD have wondered about at the moment of Her death (or undeath depending on your view) but She didn't. She asked about NOW. Ancient Catholic Tradition suggests that's very, very appropriate since the Incarnation happened NOW (or at least on the same day).

Her response makes no sense if she expects the Incarnation to be in the distant future. It only makes sense IF the ancient Catholic Tradition is true: the Incarnation and the Annunication happened TOGETHER, at the same time, on the same day (which is why you celebrated both on March 25)


.

The child was then conceived upon her free consent.

Of course, the text doesn't say. But it is ancient Catholic Tradition that it was ON THE SAME DAY. Perhaps it came to that conclusion because of Mary's reply in the PRESENT tense, but however it did, it is very ancient Tradition that you embrace that the Incarnation and the Annunciation happened at the same time, on the same day, thus making Mary's statement in the PRESENT ACTIVE not only accurate but appropriate. And it therefore means it has ZERO relevance to Her status as a virgin 42 years in the future when she died (or didn't). It has NOTHING to do with Mary being a PERPETUAL virgin. And there is NO reference WHATSOEVER to any "vow" made by anyone concerning anything. Obviously.







.

 

[Thekla]

Check out the Nicene/Constantinople Creed ... the Virgin Mary ...

is it gossip ?

 

[Thekla]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times] PRESENT
TENSE[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times] [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times]CONTINUOUS ACTION
HABITUAL ACTION
OFTEN REFLECTS A LIFESTYLE
[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]http://www.preceptaustin.org/new_page_40.htm
[/FONT]

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Check out the Nicene/Constantinople Creed ... the Virgin Mary ...]

Perpetual?

It says BORN of the Virgin Mary - teaching that she was a virgin at His birth.

Where does the Creed say, "Born of Mary who had no sex ever?"







.

 

[Thekla]

Perpetual?

It says BORN of the Virgin Mary - teaching that she was a virgin at His birth.

Where does the Creed say, "Born of Mary who had no sex ever?"

Would it not be more accurate - if your interpretation is meant in the Creed - to say "born of Mary, who was at the time of conception, a virgin" or similar ?

(Wouldn't birth end virginity, physically ?)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

(Wouldn't birth end virginity, physically ?)

No, obviously not. Does the Orthodox Church teach that Mary did not give birth to Jesus? Or that She had a C-Section? Regardless, that says nothing about whether Mary and Joseph had a single instence of mutual loving intimacies 25 years after Jesus was born, does it?


Again, the 381 version says, "who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man" This speaks of Our Lord's incarnation. I do not read, "... by the Holy Ghost by Mary who had no sex ever and was made man." Nope, the Creed says nothing about the status of such at the moment of Her death or undeath (what is the Orthodox view on that?).





.

 

[Thekla]

No, obviously not.

Does the Orthodox Church teach that Mary did not give birth to Jesus?


Again, the 381 version says, "who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man" This speaks of Our Lord's incarnation. I do not read, "... by the Holy Ghost by Mary who had no sex ever and was made man." Nope, the Creed says nothing about the status of such at the moment of Her death or undeath (what is the Orthodox view on that?).

What does "virgin" mean

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What does "virgin" mean

vir·gin

/ˈvərjən/

Noun: A person, typically a woman, who has never had sexual intercourse.
Adjective: Being, relating to, or appropriate for a virgin: "his virgin bride". http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...o=u&sa=X&ei=7ww-Tv2kOqGjsQKWz9gJ&ved=0CBUQkQ4

The term is used in the 381 Creed to refer to Mary at the incarnation of Jesus. It is not used to refer to Her at the moment of Her death or undeath (whatever the EOC dogma is on that).

It does not refer to one who has had a C-Section, if it's EOC dogma that that's how Jesus was born.



.

 

[Thekla]

The term is used in the 381 Creed to refer to Mary at the incarnation of Jesus. It is not used to refer to Her at the moment of Her death or undeath (whatever the EOC dogma is on that).

It does not refer to one who has had a C-Section, if it's EOC dogma that that's how Jesus was born.

Why is the term in the Creed used as a title ?

Why does the Creed not say "conceived by Mary who was at the time a virgin" ?

What does "virgin" mean ?

 

[Philothei]

Of course Mary was a Virgin when she had Christ....that we did know the historically in those days a teen was for sure a virgin anywyas..So the title is refering to her "ever virginity" for sure.

 

[Thekla]

So then we should assume the in the 1st century, Jewish females conceiving their firstborn were not typically virgins, thus it had to be pointed out in the Creed that Mary was an anomaly ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So then we should assume the in the 1st century, Jewish females conceiving their firstborn were not typically virgins, thus it had to be pointed out in the Creed that Mary was an anomaly ?

I'm not sure a pure, entirely unfounded ASSUMPTION is the stuff of "greatest certainty of truth and highest importance"

I have no idea at all what your question has to do with anything or why ASSUMPTION is evidence to you. Yes, it could be that those who conceived a child were a virgin, could be that they were not. I'm GUESS that at least 99% of the time, they would not be. However, it would be unusual for one to concieve a child and be a virgin! Which is what the Creed says, at the incarnation, at the conception - She was a virgin. That would be rather remarkable, don't you think? But how does that provide evidence that when believers die, their souls undergo an evolutionary leap so that their sense of hearing now can detect the prayers of all 2 billion or so believers (even if all at the same time, even if unspoken) and ERGO they pass on all these specific, particular petitions to the Father who ERGO is more likely to respond to them in a way the believer desires, especially if such a soul is the patron saint of the believer's job? And how does it indicate that the 381 edition of the Creed actually states, "incarnate of Mary who had no sex ever?"






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What does "virgin" mean ?

One, especially a female, who had no had sex.

Does the Creed say, "incarnate by Mary who had no sex ever?" Nope.

Was She a virgin at the incarnation? Yes.



.

 

[Philothei]

So then we should assume the in the 1st century, Jewish females conceiving their firstborn were not typically virgins, thus it had to be pointed out in the Creed that Mary was an anomaly ?

Makes sense to me... apparently no to others but still no hard feelings

 

[Thekla]

One, especially a female, who had no had sex.

Does the Creed say, "incarnate by Mary who had no sex ever?" Nope.

Was She a virgin at the incarnation? Yes.

So why does the Creed fail to say "Mary, who was a virgin at the time of the conception" (hardly unusual re: a firstborn) instead of using the title "Virgin Mary" ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So why does the Creed fail to say "Mary, who was a virgin at the time of the conception" (hardly unusual re: a firstborn) instead of using the title "Virgin Mary" ?

1. Being a virgin and yet have conceived a child is EXTREMELY unsual, it seems to me. Do you know of one other case besides Mary? And while one CAN concieve the first time they have sex, I understand that's quite unusal biologically; I don't know how our reproductive systems would have been so different in the First Century.


2. You seem to be missing the point: The 381 edition of the Creed says NOTHING about how often Mary did or did not have sex during Her lifetime. It does not say, "Who was conceived of Mary who had no sex ever." The whole point is the INCARNATION of Jesus, His being CONCEPTION. And yes, it seems to me that it IS unusual for someone to conceive a child and yet still be a virgin.





.

 

[Philothei]

1. Being a virgin and yet have conceived a child is EXTREMELY unsual, it seems to me. Do you know of one other case besides Mary?


2. You seem to be missing the point: The 381 edition of the Creed says NOTHING about how often Mary did or did not have sex during Her lifetime. It does not say, "Who was conceived of Mary who had no sex ever." The whole point is the INCARNATION of Jesus, His being CONCEPTION. And yes, it seems to me that it IS unusual for someone to conceive a child and yet still be a virgin.





.

Maybe you can explain also the mystery of Christ's conception then?