Mary cannot be Queen. (2)

[justinangel]

.

Yes, I know... I acknowledged that. Doesn't address my point.

They spoke greek. If God meant cousin or kin by using the word adalpho, the proper translation into another language would be cousin or kin in latin and later other languages as to not be ambiguous... but they didn't... HS moment perhaps?


Proof please.


Of course there is ALWAYS a reason to be clear.

We understand the traditional Catholic position. We don't need to seek their counsel again.. we are disputing it!



They spoke Aramaic and it was written in greek. You have no point.


This is regardless... they WROTE in greek and KNEW that there IS a word for cousin and would have used it if that is the truth.

If they were cousins, they would have written cousins. This is not rocket science.

Yea no kidding... because he was being clear. Goes to show that the writers of Jesus brothers and sisters would have been clear as well.

So?

So?
LOL.... why not translated as sister... after all, it has more than one meaning. You still have yet to make your point. To be consistant with the Jewish idioms that you are expousing.... it would have been written the word adalphas

And further proving my point! When it was TRANSLATED into GREEK... the word cousin or relative was used instead of the ambiguous word adalphos or adalphas.



So you don't think these apostles were actual brothers?

Didn't you understand what I wrote? Mary and the Jews who asked the questions in Mark 6:3 didn't speak Greek. Since they didn't have the word cousin in their semitic lexicon, there was no need to translate something that wasn't there and actually spoken by them - that is the word cousin. Further, a cousin is a relative, and in semitic usage the words "brother" and "sister" refer to close relatives, not only siblings. So the word relative means the same thing and can be used. If my cousin is going to visit me, I can just as well tell you that a relative of mine is going to visit me. I don't have to use the word cousin. The terms are interchangeable.

We know from tradition and the writings of the early Church Fathers that Mary was ever-virgin, and we Catholics knew centuries before Pope Damasus l initially decreed which books and letters of the Bible belong to the canon of Scripture (ratified by Carthage and Trent). Scripture itself is the result of the Judaic and Catholic traditions, the former being fulfilled in the latter. So it must be interpreted in light of the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. How can you even be sure that the Gospels of Mark and Luke were inspired by the Holy Spirit? Do you have the original autographs or are you placing your faith in the judgment of the Catholic Church? Feel free to keep presuming and choosing what you personally want to believe by gleaning the written word independently and performing a linguistic juggling act. That's the most you can do severed from the historic Christian faith.

Pax Christu,
J.A.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Several things...

First... if Adolphos means other than blood sibling (which it can) in this verse, why is it that the Catholic translators did not clarify upon translation the true meaning and intent as to which they think the word was used.... IE used the word kin or cousins in their translation?

second... The writings in the NT that talk of JEsus' brothers AND sisters was ORIGINALLY written in Greek and the Greek does have a word for cousin... if that is what the NT writers intent was (that these brothers and sisters where actual cousins) they would have written these words
female cousin = ξαδέλφη (ksaTHElfee - th like in the word the)
male cousin = ξάδελφος (KSAthelfos - th like in the word the)
cousins = ξαδέλφια (ksaTHElfia - th like in the word the)


As evidenced by other scriptures that are correctly translated from the original that means exactly what it says... cousin.


My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.)

1. 
   And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
   (in Context) (Whole Chapter)
2. 
   And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.

The word Adolphos was NOT used. God knows what he is doing and what he wishes to reveal without ambiguity.

Thirdly... if the Catholic Church wishes to LOOK consistent... they must maintain that Mary, Martha as well as Lazarus were not brothers and sisters either as their parents are not mentioned in the context AT ALL and the same word, adolphos is used.... the same being with several of the apostles such as, Simon and Andrew, James and John, etc.

THEN CONSIDER other writings during the same era:



The "etymological fallacy." This fallacy lies in supposing that the etymology of a word will unfailingly and adequately yield its actual meaning.

Etymologically, adelphos is one of a family of words generated by the compound root adelph-, wherein a = "same" and delph = "womb." Kilmon supposes that adelphoi and adelphai, used to describe Jesus' "brothers" and "sisters," are "very precise Greek" and mean "from the same womb." This is a half-truth and a serious blunder, fatal to his further argumentation.

David Hill (University of Sheffield) writes:

"Etymology is no sure guide to the semantic value of words in their current usage...such value has to be determined from the current usage itself and not from derivation. The etymology of a word...is not a statement about its meaning, but about its history, and the historical past of a word is not a reliable guide to its present meaning." (Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967, p. 3). See also James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961).)

Now we shall look at some examples of the actual usages of words of the adelph- family in classical and Hellenistic Greek. (Here I omit for brevity the many extant examples of their use to describe uterine brother/sisterhood and the non-familial usages of these words.)

Plato (Critias 109c) says that Hephaestus and Athena were brother and sister by birth (physin adelphen). Mythology buffs will remember that they were both children of one father, Zeus, but by different mothers: Hephaestus's mother was Hera; Athena's mother (albeit under strange circumstances) was Metis. Again, Plato (Laws XI, 924e) speaks of "that brother [adelphos] who is born of the same father or of the same mother ...." (Plato is very precise here because he is laying down the laws of inheritance in a model state.) I omit citations from the very numerous passages in which Plato uses adelph- words as adjectives meaning "kindred, akin, cognate."

Menander, an Attic comic poet of the late fourth and early third centuries B.C., in an extant fragment of his play The Farmer, line 12, shows us a young man complaining because his father is forcing him to marry his adelphe. She is his half-sister, born of the same father as he, but of a different mother.

In the Oxyrynchian Papyri (P. Oxy. IV, 744), we read a letter from a certain Hilarion to his adelphei, Alis. The names are Greek and the language is Greek, although these papyri were found in Egypt. The letter dates to the late first century B.C. Its editors say that Alis was probably Hilarion's wife. She is pregnant, and Hilarion tells her to expose the baby, when born, if it is a girl. Egyptians of that time sometimes married their uterine sisters, but it is not known that Greeks did so. It was not a Greek custom.

In the collection Royal Correspondence of the Hellenistic Period,Text 36, pp. 156-163 (C. Bradford Welles, Yale University Press, 1934), there is a letter of the Syrian Seleucid king Antiochus III to the governor of Caria in Asia Minor in which he calls his wife and queen, Laodice, his sister (adelphes). Actually, she is known to have been his cousin and the daughter of King Mithridates of Pontus. The letter proclaims Laodice a goddess and decrees temples and priests in her honor.

These examples from sources outside the Bible are sufficient to disprove simplistic statement: "Adelphos. . . is very precise Greek and means 'from the same womb.'"

*Matthew 13:55 and other texts would have used anepsios instead of adelphos if James and the others were Jesus' cousins and not his uterine brothers.

This point has no force because adelphos can have a wider meaning than uterine brother. Also, as I said before, neither Keating nor anyone else supposes that adelphos means precisely "cousin." It is better rendered "relative" or "kinsman," as will be clearer when we consider the influence of the Septuagint on New Testament Greek diction.
Anepsios is rather too precise a word for Jesus' adelphoi. Anepsios means "first cousin" or sometimes merely "cousin." Now every cousin is a kinsman, but not every kinsman is a cousin. Therefore, adelphos, not anepsios, was the appropriate word to use in Matthew 13:55 and elsewhere to describe Jesus' relatives.


Was Jesus an Only Child? (This Rock: January 1990)

 

[washedagain]

=justinangel;58102778]Didn't you understand what I wrote? Mary and the Jews who asked the questions in Mark 6:3 didn't speak Greek. Since they didn't have the word cousin in their semitic lexicon, there was no need to translate something that wasn't there and actually spoken by them - that is the word cousin. Further, a cousin is a relative, and in semitic usage the words "brother" and "sister" refer to close relatives, not only siblings.

Sure, I completely comprehend what you wrote... still does not account for why it is that it was not properly translated as to intent. If he was speaking in Aramaic and the ONLY word that could be used to indicate kin or cousin is brother or sister but is translated into Greek that actually has a word for kin or cousin.. the correct method of translation would have been to use the Greek word for cousin or kin. Simply really.

So the word relative means the same thing and can be used. If my cousin is going to visit me, I can just as well tell you that a relative of mine is going to visit me. I don't have to use the word cousin. The terms are interchangeable.

And what is your point? The reality is the word relative was NOT used. That is my point. Other scriptures us specific words for relatives... except here? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm why is that? could it be because the *gasp* God actually meant brothers and sisters????????

We know from tradition and the writings of the early Church Fathers that Mary was ever-virgin

,

Do we have evidence from first century Christianity.. ya know, the ones where were there, received the word of God and who walked with JEsus? What is their testimony of Mary's virginity? And while we are at it... can you tell me who received this revelation about Mary's virginity and when?

and we Catholics knew centuries before Pope Damasus l initially decreed which books and letters of the Bible belong to the canon of Scripture (ratified by Carthage and Trent). Scripture itself is the result of the Judaic and Catholic traditions, the former being fulfilled in the latter. So it must be interpreted in light of the Apostolic Tradition of the Church.

Start another thread.. .we are discussing Mary being a virgin and having kids.

How can you even be sure that the Gospels of Mark and Luke were inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Well, it sure has heck isn't because your church says so. It is because of harmony, manuscript evidence, consistency, prophecy, historical accuracy, among other things. Again, start another thread, you off topic... we are discussing Mary's virginity and her having kids.

Do you have the original autographs or are you placing your faith in the judgment of the Catholic Church?

I see that you are desperate to change the subject... start another thread.

Feel free to keep presuming and choosing what you personally want to believe by gleaning the written word independently and performing a linguistic juggling act.

LOL.... now you are really wishing to change the subject... have you chosen to agree with the Catholic Church? We ALL choose what we believe... you are not novel in the least. again, we are discussing Mary and her virginity and her having children.

That's the most you can do severed from the historic Christian faith.

Sniff, sniff.

Please. Spare me the piety. Care to stay on topic?

 

[washedagain]

THEN CONSIDER other writings during the same era:



The "etymological fallacy." This fallacy lies in supposing that the etymology of a word will unfailingly and adequately yield its actual meaning.

Etymologically, adelphos is one of a family of words generated by the compound root adelph-, wherein a = "same" and delph = "womb." Kilmon supposes that adelphoi and adelphai, used to describe Jesus' "brothers" and "sisters," are "very precise Greek" and mean "from the same womb." This is a half-truth and a serious blunder, fatal to his further argumentation.

David Hill (University of Sheffield) writes:

"Etymology is no sure guide to the semantic value of words in their current usage...such value has to be determined from the current usage itself and not from derivation. The etymology of a word...is not a statement about its meaning, but about its history, and the historical past of a word is not a reliable guide to its present meaning." (Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967, p. 3). See also James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961).)

Now we shall look at some examples of the actual usages of words of the adelph- family in classical and Hellenistic Greek. (Here I omit for brevity the many extant examples of their use to describe uterine brother/sisterhood and the non-familial usages of these words.)

Plato (Critias 109c) says that Hephaestus and Athena were brother and sister by birth (physin adelphen). Mythology buffs will remember that they were both children of one father, Zeus, but by different mothers: Hephaestus's mother was Hera; Athena's mother (albeit under strange circumstances) was Metis. Again, Plato (Laws XI, 924e) speaks of "that brother [adelphos] who is born of the same father or of the same mother ...." (Plato is very precise here because he is laying down the laws of inheritance in a model state.) I omit citations from the very numerous passages in which Plato uses adelph- words as adjectives meaning "kindred, akin, cognate."

Menander, an Attic comic poet of the late fourth and early third centuries B.C., in an extant fragment of his play The Farmer, line 12, shows us a young man complaining because his father is forcing him to marry his adelphe. She is his half-sister, born of the same father as he, but of a different mother.

In the Oxyrynchian Papyri (P. Oxy. IV, 744), we read a letter from a certain Hilarion to his adelphei, Alis. The names are Greek and the language is Greek, although these papyri were found in Egypt. The letter dates to the late first century B.C. Its editors say that Alis was probably Hilarion's wife. She is pregnant, and Hilarion tells her to expose the baby, when born, if it is a girl. Egyptians of that time sometimes married their uterine sisters, but it is not known that Greeks did so. It was not a Greek custom.

In the collection Royal Correspondence of the Hellenistic Period,Text 36, pp. 156-163 (C. Bradford Welles, Yale University Press, 1934), there is a letter of the Syrian Seleucid king Antiochus III to the governor of Caria in Asia Minor in which he calls his wife and queen, Laodice, his sister (adelphes). Actually, she is known to have been his cousin and the daughter of King Mithridates of Pontus. The letter proclaims Laodice a goddess and decrees temples and priests in her honor.

These examples from sources outside the Bible are sufficient to disprove simplistic statement: "Adelphos. . . is very precise Greek and means 'from the same womb.'"

*Matthew 13:55 and other texts would have used anepsios instead of adelphos if James and the others were Jesus' cousins and not his uterine brothers.

This point has no force because adelphos can have a wider meaning than uterine brother. Also, as I said before, neither Keating nor anyone else supposes that adelphos means precisely "cousin." It is better rendered "relative" or "kinsman," as will be clearer when we consider the influence of the Septuagint on New Testament Greek diction.
Anepsios is rather too precise a word for Jesus' adelphoi. Anepsios means "first cousin" or sometimes merely "cousin." Now every cousin is a kinsman, but not every kinsman is a cousin. Therefore, adelphos, not anepsios, was the appropriate word to use in Matthew 13:55 and elsewhere to describe Jesus' relatives.


Was Jesus an Only Child? (This Rock: January 1990)

Are you purposely refusing to see the point?

Maybe if I type real slow, it may sink in....

If the NT, which is originally written in GREEK, use such distinguishing words for cousins, relatives and kin... then why were the writers (really, why was not GOD!) consistent in relaying cousins, relatives and kin EXCEPT for JEsus reletives....

They translated correctly.... that is JEsus brothers and sisters... if they were anything other, they would have translated correctly cousin, relative, kin.

Sigh.

time to do a little jig!

 

[Incariol]

Are you purposely refusing to see the point?

Maybe if I type real slow, it may sink in....

If the NT, which is originally written in GREEK, use such distinguishing words for cousins, relatives and kin... then why were the writers (really, why was not GOD!) consistent in relaying cousins, relatives and kin EXCEPT for JEsus reletives....

They translated correctly.... that is JEsus brothers and sisters... if they were anything other, they would have translated correctly cousin, relative, kin.

Sigh.

time to do a little jig!

St. Jerome refuted "His Brethren" as an argument 1,500 years ago.

I now ask to which class you consider the Lord's brethren in the Gospel must be assigned. They are brethren by nature, you say. But Scripture does not say so; it calls them neither sons of Mary, nor of Joseph. Shall we say they are brethren by race? But it is absurd to suppose that a few Jews were called His brethren when all Jews of the time might upon this principle have borne the title. Were they brethren by virtue of close intimacy and the union of heart and mind? If that were so, who were more truly His brethren than the apostles who received His private instruction and were called by Him His mother and His brethren? Again, if all men, as such, were His brethren, it would have been foolish to deliver a special message, "Behold, your brethren seek you," for all men alike were entitled to the name. The only alternative is to adopt the previous explanation and understand them to be called brethren in virtue of the bond of kindred, not of love and sympathy, nor by prerogative of race, nor yet by nature.

And no, I don't think modern amateur Koine "scholars" are comparable to people who actually lived during the time the language was spoken.
​

 

[washedagain]

St. Jerome refuted "His Brethren" as an argument 1,500 years ago.

And no, I don't think modern amateur Koine "scholars" are comparable to people who actually lived during the time the language was spoken.
​

You are right! The very first people to translate into greek did translate correctly... brothers and sisters, cousins and relatives.

Thanks!

I don't care for the opinion of of a dead dude 500 years after the fact that is needing to support a non scriptural teaching... IE perpetual virginity.

 

[WarriorAngel]

St. Jerome refuted "His Brethren" as an argument 1,500 years ago.

And he was a translator in 382 AD - if anyone should know what it meant, he did indeed.

 

[washedagain]

And he was a translator in 382 AD - if anyone should know what it meant, he did indeed.

If he knew what it meant (the verse in question) he would have translated it correctly as COUSIN or KIN or RELATIVE for the Catholic position to be consistent. As were the other GREEK writings where in the rest of the new testament when discussing COUSINS, KIN, RELATIVE.

 

[WarriorAngel]

If he knew what it meant (the verse in question) he would have translated it correctly as COUSIN or KIN or RELATIVE for the Catholic position to be consistent. As were the other GREEK writings where in the rest of the new testament when discussing COUSINS, KIN, RELATIVE.

He knew what it meant and as i showed you and you evidently did not comprehend in the slightest in my previous post was that they used this same language for cousin or close kin until the 5th century or more.

SO your opinion on what he should have done, vs how they spoke during his time and for so long after, doesnt coincide.

You are saying he should have changed it to suit the future that he had no knowledge of.

Furthermore; St Jerome was intentionally sought out to defend our Lady and the heresy of that time suggesting then she had given birth to brothers and sisters for the Lord - because - he was the one who was knowledgeable of Hebrew, Greek and Latin.

And defend her Perpetual Virginity, He did.

Not to mention the catacombs of the first Christians [burial] which stated her virginity perpetually.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Church Fathers

The perpetual virginity of our Blessed Lady was taught and proposed to our belief not merely by the councils and creeds, but also by the early Fathers. The words of the prophet Isaias (vii, 14) are understood in this sense by

• St. Irenaeus (III, 21; see Eusebius, Church History V.8),
• Origen (Adv. Cels., I, 35),
• Tertullian (Adv. Marcion., III, 13; Adv. Judæos, IX),
• St. Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 84),
• St. John Chrysostom (Hom. v in Matth., n. 3; in Isa., VII, n. 5);
• St. Epiphanius (Hær., xxviii, n. 7),
• Eusebius (Demonstrat. ev., VIII, i),
• Rufinus (Lib. fid., 43),
• St. Basil (in Isa., vii, 14; Hom. in S. Generat. Christi, n. 4, if St. Basil be the author of these two passages),
• St. Jerome and Theodoretus (in Isa., vii, 14),
• St. Isidore (Adv. Judæos, I, x, n. 3),
• St. Ildefonsus (De perpetua virginit. s. Mariæ, iii).

St. Jerome devotes his entire treatise against Helvidius to the perpetual virginity of Our Blessed Lady (see especially nos. 4, 13, 18).
The contrary doctrine is called:

• "madness and blasphemy" by Gennadius (De dogm. eccl., lxix),
• "madness" by Origen (in Luc., h, vii),
• "sacrilege" by St. Ambrose (De instit. virg., V, xxxv),
• "impiety and smacking of atheism" by Philostorgius (VI, 2),
• "perfidy" by St. Bede (hom. v, and xxii),
• "full of blasphemies" by the author of Prædestin. (i, 84),
• "perfidy of the Jews" by Pope Siricius (ep. ix, 3),
• "heresy" by St. Augustine (De Hær. h., lvi).

St. Epiphanius probably excels all others in his invectives against the opponents of Our Lady's virginity (Hær., lxxviii, 1, 11, 23).

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Virgin Birth of Christ

 

[WarriorAngel]

CHURCH FATHERS: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary (Jerome)

1. I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to a pamphlet written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defeating. There was the further consideration that a turbulent fellow, the only individual in the world who thinks himself both priest and layman, one who, as has been said, thinks that eloquence consists in loquacity and considers speaking ill of anyone to be the witness of a good conscience, would begin to blaspheme worse than ever if opportunity of discussion were afforded him. He would stand as it were on a pedestal, and would publish his views far and wide. There was reason also to fear that when truth failed him he would assail his opponents with the weapon of abuse. But all these motives for silence, though just, have more justly ceased to influence me, because of the scandal caused to the brethren who were disgusted at his ravings. The axe of the Gospel must therefore be now laid to the root of the barren tree, and both it and its fruitless foliage cast into the fire, so that Helvidius who has never learned to speak, may at length learn to hold his tongue.
2. I must call upon the Holy Spirit to express His meaning by my mouth and defend the virginity of the Blessed Mary. I must call upon the Lord Jesus to guard the sacred lodging of the womb in which He abode for ten months from all suspicion of sexual intercourse. And I must also entreat God the Father to show that the mother of His Son, who was a mother before she was a bride, continued a Virgin after her son was born. We have no desire to career over the fields of eloquence, we do not resort to the snares of the logicians or the thickets of Aristotle. We shall adduce the actual words of Scripture. Let him be refuted by the same proofs which he employed against us, so that he may see that it was possible for him to read what is written, and yet to be unable to discern the established conclusion of a sound faith.

 

[Incariol]

I don't care for the opinion of of a dead dude 500 years

I'm sorry you hold the early Christians in such low regard.

 

[washedagain]

He knew what it meant and as i showed you and you evidently did not comprehend in the slightest in my previous post was that they used this same language for cousin or close kin until the 5th century or more.

yes, in their native tongue... the NT was written in GREEK... there is no need to use the word brother nor sister to communicate cousin, kin or relative as there are ample words in GREEK that MEAN cousin, kin or relative, which of course are USED in the rest of the NT writings. So the translators where not stupid of the Greek and KNEW exactly what needed to be written to convey meaning... otherwise, they would have called Elizabeth Mary's sister, etc, etc.

SO your opinion on what he should have done, vs how they spoke during his time and for so long after, doesnt coincide.

This is not opinion. The translators did exactly what they meant. they wrote brother instead of cousin... if it were cousins, they would have used the GREEK word cousin to communicate accurately.

You are saying he should have changed it to suit the future that he had no knowledge of.

LOL.... I love it when people try to guess what another is saying when obviously they have not a clue what was really said.

Furthermore; St Jerome was intentionally sought out to defend our Lady and the heresy of that time suggesting then she had given birth to brothers and sisters for the Lord - because - he was the one who was knowledgeable of Hebrew, Greek and Latin.

LOL... exactly... he had a teaching he had to uphold.. how you cannot see the biased problem here is amazing to me! OF course he is going to say that those brothers were really cousin/kin/relatives!!!!!! He had an agenda... the truth and reality is, the translation would be the GREEK words for cousins, kin, relatives if that were the truth. It isn't.

And defend her Perpetual Virginity, He did.

Again.... he had an agenda.. upholding a belief that is unscriptural... the bias is amazing and you can't seem to grasp it.

Not to mention the catacombs of the first Christians [burial] which stated her virginity perpetually.

Proof please.

 

[washedagain]

I'm sorry you hold the early Christians in such low regard.

I hold no one in any regard.

The most solid foundation that I can gleen spiritual truth from is the Word of God... everything and everything else is suspect.

 

[justinangel]

Sure, I completely comprehend what you wrote... still does not account for why it is that it was not properly translated as to intent. If he was speaking in Aramaic and the ONLY word that could be used to indicate kin or cousin is brother or sister but is translated into Greek that actually has a word for kin or cousin.. the correct method of translation would have been to use the Greek word for cousin or kin. Simply really.

You're begging the question. The translator did not necessarily have to incorporate the Greek word for cousin to be specific. Like I said, the Jews and the angel Gabriel never said "cousin" in Aramaic, so the translator could have kept the original forms of expressions used by them translated in the Greek. I fail to see why it's incorrect not to. Your conclusion is reached by making a false assumption.

And what is your point? The reality is the word relative was NOT used. That is my point. Other scriptures us specific words for relatives... except here? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm why is that? could it be because the *gasp* God actually meant brothers and sisters????????

The word "relative" could have been spoken by the angel Gabriel, for in Aramaic there is no word for cousin. But we don't know for sure, since we don't have the original copy written by Luke.

What other scriptures? Maybe in the voice of the narrator.

] Do we have evidence from first century Christianity.. ya know, the ones where were there, received the word of God and who walked with JEsus? What is their testimony of Mary's virginity? And while we are at it... can you tell me who received this revelation about Mary's virginity and when?

The followers of Jesus and the first converts knew by oral tradition and the preaching of the apostles that Mary remained a virgin. Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of John) speaks of her virginity as something "hidden from the prince of this world". Her virginity could not have been kept hidden if she had other offspring by Joseph. Irenaeus and Justyn Martyr call Mary "The Virgin Mary" and "The Virgin" in the 2nd century, as we do today and always have. In Luke we read: "How shall this be, since I do not know man?" (1:34). If Mary had intended to raise a family with Joseph, she wouldn't have asked the angel this question. Obviously she knew the biological facts of life, and as a devout Jewish girl she expected the messiah to be of biological paternal lineage.

Pax Christu,
J.A.

 

[washedagain]

=justinangel;58130649]

You're begging the question.

There is no begging of any question... there is not question. The reality is.... according to you folks.... that the translators used the word brothers and sisters in GREEK because it can mean other than blood siblings...because the Aramaic doesn't have a word for cousins, kin, relatives. The question that is begged is why did the translators in the REST OF NT scriptures use the GREEK word cousin, kin and relative... after all, the oral word was Aramaic or Hebrew and there was no such word.

The translator did not necessarily have to incorporate the Greek word for cousin to be specific.

And yet they do with the rest of scripture... go figure.

Like I said, the Jews and the angel Gabriel never said "cousin" in Aramaic, so the translator could have kept the original forms of expressions used by them translated in the Greek.

And yet, in the rest of NT GREEK God used the word cousin, kin, relative? Really?

I fail to see why it's incorrect not to.

Yes, I know.

Your conclusion is reached by making a false assumption.

There is no assumption. YOU assume that brothers and sisters is not literal, yet the rest of scripture makes sure that the reader knows relation by using appropriate translation of relation... amazing.

The word "relative" could have been spoken by the angel Gabriel, for in Aramaic there is no word for cousin.

And it would have been translated in GREEK as relative... lol....

But we don't know for sure, since we don't have the original copy written by Luke.

It was written in GREEK!

What other scriptures? Maybe in the voice of the narrator.

I have already posted the other scriptures.

The followers of Jesus and the first converts knew by oral tradition and the preaching of the apostles that Mary remained a virgin.

Proof please... you just saying so is not evidence.

Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of John) speaks of her virginity as something "hidden from the prince of this world".

Yes, she was a virgin who gave birth. Says nothing of her being perpetual.

Her virginity could not have been kept hidden if she had other offspring by Joseph.

Scripture says that Joseph knew her not till the birth of Jesus. After that, she didn't need to be kept.

Irenaeus and Justyn Martyr call Mary "The Virgin Mary" and "The Virgin" in the 2nd century, as we do today and always have.

Sweety.... that is not always... 200 years after the fact does not make always. Look at our country and what has CHANGED over 200 years in thought and belief.

In Luke we read: "How shall this be, since I do not know man?" (1:34).

Yea! Lets look at that... and within 2 days she was going to see Elizabeth preggers! She knew that it was immanent, obviously as she was pregnant days later. AND>>>>>>>> drum roll please...... what woman or man would be engaged to be wed who were going to stay celibate????? The answer is NONE. And don't even try and say that she was a temple virgin and that Joseph was granted guardianship... there is not historical nor biblical proof of Jewish temple virgins and men appointed deanship of them by marriage... if you go there, I demand PROOF.

If Mary had intended to raise a family with Joseph, she wouldn't have asked the angel this question.

Of course she would! She obviously knew that the angel was speaking present as NO betrothed woman would think that they were always going to be a virgin and low and behold, days later she is rushing off to Elizabeth PREGNANT!

Obviously she knew the biological facts of life,

Obviously.

and as a devout Jewish girl she expected the messiah to be of biological paternal lineage.

Yes... and how did she think that was gonna happen??????? BY SEX!!!!!!!!! Duh... you just shot yourself in your own foot.

 

[justinangel]

=justinangel;58130649]

There is no begging of any question... there is not question. The reality is.... according to you folks.... that the translators used the word brothers and sisters in GREEK because it can mean other than blood siblings...because the Aramaic doesn't have a word for cousins, kin, relatives. The question that is begged is why did the translators in the REST OF NT scriptures use the GREEK word cousin, kin and relative... after all, the oral word was Aramaic or Hebrew and there was no such word.'

I thought you understood what I meant, that is the translators preserved the original words used by those Jews who spoke in Aramaic, which has no word for "cousin" in its lexicon. In other parts of the New Testament written in the Greek the writer is addressing Greek speaking people who have the word "cousin" in their vocabulary. Must I have to repeat myself?

And yet they do with the rest of scripture... go figure.

Not in the case where we have Jews speaking when referring to cousins and other relatives in the extended family, as in Mark 6:3. The Latin Vulgate does have the word "cousin" in Luke 1:36, in the angel's address, but it's only one translation among many, as the KJV is in the Protestant tradition. All other versions have "relative" or "kin" (sungenis). So it's no big deal. You make inconsitency out to be a trend. Jerome is simply affirming his belief that Elizabeth was Mary's cousin as opposed to being her aunt, so he ignored the Greek word sungenis when translating the Bible into Latin. We still don't know know for sure by gleaning the written word how the two women specifically related to one another.

And yet, in the rest of NT GREEK God used the word cousin, kin, relative? Really?

Show me where we have "cousin" on occasions where characters are speaking in ancient Aramaic or Hebrew. Rebekah's mother called her daughter "sister" (achoth) in the Old Testament, which is preserved in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible: the Septuagint (adelfe); and Solomon addressed his spouse as "sister".

There is no assumption. YOU assume that brothers and sisters is not literal, yet the rest of scripture makes sure that the reader knows relation by using appropriate translation of relation... amazing.

The rest of Scripture? That's quite a sweeping generalization. Please provide some examples, but not where Greeks are directly being addressed by the speaker or writer.

And it would have been translated in GREEK as relative... lol....

Naturally, because it is uncertain whether Elizabeth was Mary's cousin or aunt. Didn't you know this? The credibility of your argument rests on the sure knowledge that they were related as cousins. But we only know that they were somehow related as kin.

It was written in GREEK!

It makes no difference. Luke probably wrote "sister" or "relative" because we have the angel speaking to Mary in Aramaic.

I have already posted the other scriptures.

Like Paul's letter to the Greek speaking Colossians?

Proof please... you just saying so is not evidence.

The unanimous taechings of the Church Fathers in keeping with an ongoing tradition originating in apostolic time (paradosis) is proof. Individuals like yourself who are cut off from the Apostolic Tradition of the Catholic Church naturally have to start from scratch by gleaning the written word which is the result of the unwritten word.

Yes, she was a virgin who gave birth. Says nothing of her being perpetual.

Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John, refers to "three mysteries", two of them being Mary's virginity and the virgin birth: the former a state, the latter an event. You are confusing these two mysteries as one.

Scripture says that Joseph knew her not till the birth of Jesus. After that, she didn't need to be kept.

Matthew is simply affirming that Mary was a virgin before she gave birth to Jesus. He cites the prophet Isaiah to confirm his belief. The people he addresses are Jews who must be convinced of the reality of the virgin birth. If I tell you that the children in my classroom were not noisy until I returned, I do not mean that they became noisy after I returned. What I mean is that they remained quite while I was out for awhile. Heos refers to the period which precedes the event and is unconcerned with what follows after.

Sweety.... that is not always... 200 years after the fact does not make always. Look at our country and what has CHANGED over 200 years in thought and belief.

But there is no change in our Catholic Tradition. We invoke Mary as the Blessed Virgin Mary just as the early Church Fathers did. You make no sense, Sweety.

Yea! Lets look at that... and within 2 days she was going to see Elizabeth preggers! She knew that it was immanent, obviously as she was pregnant days later. AND>>>>>>>> drum roll please...... what woman or man would be engaged to be wed who were going to stay celibate????? The answer is NONE. And don't even try and say that she was a temple virgin and that Joseph was granted guardianship... there is not historical nor biblical proof of Jewish temple virgins and men appointed deanship of them by marriage... if you go there, I demand PROOF.

First of all, there is no need to appeal to the belief that Mary was a temple virgin and had made a vow of chastity to God her Father. Logic alone suffices to confirm our belief in her perpetual virginity. The angel spoke simply of an indefinite event which would take place some time during her marriage with Joseph. So she wondered how she could ever possibly conceive a child if she intended to remain a virgin. She must have asked herself whether God intended for her to dismiss her vow. Thus the angel assured her in reply to her question that the conception would be a supernatural one. She afterwards learned of Elizabeth's conception of John

Of course she would! She obviously knew that the angel was speaking present as NO betrothed woman would think that they were always going to be a virgin and low and behold, days later she is rushing off to Elizabeth PREGNANT!

I fail to see what the Visitation has to do with this subject. If Mary had intended to have conjugal relations with Joseph, she wouldn't have asked the angel "How shall this be?" Instead she would have asked When will this be? Case closed. She wasn't expecting a miraculous conception.

Yes... and how did she think that was gonna happen??????? BY SEX!!!!!!!!! Duh... you just shot yourself in your own foot.

But Mary asks "How"? By what manner or means? You're shooting your own foot. By the way, you're off topic. This thread is about the queenship of Mary.

Pax Christu
J.A.

 

[washedagain]

=justinangel;58133045]I thought you understood what I meant, that is the translators preserved the original words used by those Jews who spoke in Aramaic, which has no word for "cousin" in its lexicon. In other parts of the New Testament written in the Greek the writer is addressing Greek speaking people who have the word "cousin" in their vocabulary. Must I have to repeat myself?

You can repeat yourself all you want... knock yourself out. It matters not who the audience is... it is about translation and the vernacular of the audience that will be READING the word.

Not in the case where we have Jews speaking when referring to cousins and other relatives in the extended family, as in Mark 6:3. The Latin Vulgate does have the word "cousin" in Luke 1:36, in the angel's address, but it's only one translation among many, as the KJV is in the Protestant tradition. All other versions have "relative" or "kin" (sungenis). So it's no big deal.

It is a big deal... there are words that relay the accuracy of relation and yet in this ONE passage they didn't accuratly relay relation??????? I happen to believe the accuracy of the words chosen... cousin, kin, relative is used to convey extended family, brother and sister to relay blood siblings.

You make inconsitency out to be a trend. Jerome is simply affirming his belief that Elizabeth was Mary's cousin as opposed to being her aunt, so he ignored the Greek word sungenis when translating the Bible into Latin.

LOL.... maybe he was just telling the reality.

We still don't know know for sure by gleaning the written word how the two women specifically related to one another.

The Greek says they are cousins.

Show me where we have "cousin" on occasions where characters are speaking in ancient Aramaic or Hebrew.

I can't. There is no such word as cousin... I have repeatedly stated this.

Rebekah's mother called her daughter "sister" (achoth) in the Old Testament, which is preserved in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible:

Scripture please.

The rest of Scripture? That's quite a sweeping generalization. Please provide some examples, but not where Greeks are directly being addressed by the speaker or writer.

Why not... it does not matter who is saying what... the reality is translation.The NT that was written in GREEK (not a translation of a written text, but original) conveys to the READER relation between people. I believe it is accurately telling us that Jesus had brothers and sisters, Mary had a cousin (or kin, relative) named Elizabeth and so on and so forth...

For you to be consistent.. you would have to then speculate that Mary, Martha and Lazarus may not be blood siblings... or for that matter, Simon and Andrew may not be blood siblings either. You speculate on the brothers and sisters of JEsus because of the ambiguity and varying uses of the word... but don't with Mary and Martha and Lazarus... why is that?

Naturally, because it is uncertain whether Elizabeth was Mary's cousin or aunt. Didn't you know this? The credibility of your argument rests on the sure knowledge that they were related as cousins. But we only know that they were somehow related as kin.

What? WE KNOW that they were not sisters because God tells us! It matters not to me that she may have been an aunt or cousin... this we know.. she was NOT Mary's sister... How do we know that, God tells us.

It makes no difference. Luke probably wrote "sister" or "relative" because we have the angel speaking to Mary in Aramaic.

Yes and then translated so the reader is very aware that they are NOT sisters. See how that works?

Like Paul's letter to the Greek speaking Colossians?

Yes. It matters not that Paul was speaking Greek... the reality is the writer conveyed accurately what was said and showing clearly relation.

The unanimous taechings of the Church Fathers in keeping with an ongoing tradition originating in apostolic time (paradosis) is proof.

LOL... why are their writings not Canonized... gasp! Could it be because they are not the word of God? Them saying so is not EVIDENCE. I need first century, preferably any NT character teaching such things. That would be EVIDENCE. Good luck!

Individuals like yourself who are cut off from the Apostolic Tradition of the Catholic Church naturally have to start from scratch by gleaning the written word which is the result of the unwritten word.

I suspect that you are attempting to belittle me.. .but I take it as a great compliment... yes, I go to scripture.... Starting from scratch, scripture is what the Bereans did and I think I will follow their lead... if I read a church father, I will go to scripture to see if what they say is true. Sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't and sometimes they say things that can't even be found in scripture. This I cannot trust as the word of God as there is no EVIDENCE that what they say is actually God breathed. Thank God, God in His mercy and wisdom had His word written down.

Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John, refers to "three mysteries", two of them being Mary's virginity and the virgin birth: the former a state, the latter an event. You are confusing these two mysteries as one.

Did you know that there were false teaching and gospels during the time of the apostles? So Ignatius' testimony that is not canon means very little to me as I cannot find this teaching in scripture.

Matthew is simply affirming that Mary was a virgin before she gave birth to Jesus. He cites the prophet Isaiah to confirm his belief.

Yes

The people he addresses are Jews who must be convinced of the reality of the virgin birth

.

Yes

If I tell you that the children in my classroom were not noisy until I returned, I do not mean that they became noisy after I returned.

It doesn't matter what you mean.... the hearer of your word without any other commentary could very well understand that they became noisy.

What I mean is that they remained quite while I was out for awhile.

Again... it does not matter what you mean. Your statement as is, gives the hearer every indication that they were ONLY quiet while you were out.

Heos refers to the period which precedes the event and is unconcerned with what follows after.

So you have been told. If what you say is true, Matthew would have written, And Joseph knew her not ever. Matthew does not qualify it though as ever, he is specific about time frame... till Jesus birth... not forever.

But there is no change in our Catholic Tradition. We invoke Mary as the Blessed Virgin Mary just as the early Church Fathers did. You make no sense, Sweety.

What you say makes no sense... or is it a lie or ignorance? You use the word "always believed" but are unable to substantiate "always" for you do not have documentation that it has always been believed. If it has always been beleived you would be able to show me EVIDENCE of the apostles or any of the first century church believing this. You can't... so it is a false claim to say "Always believed" you can believe that as opinion.. but you CANNOT state that as fact.

First of all, there is no need to appeal to the belief that Mary was a temple virgin and had made a vow of chastity to God her Father. Logic alone suffices to confirm our belief in her perpetual virginity.

What logic is that, that Mary was engaged to be married intending to stay a virgin for the rest of her life? Where is the logic in that? Further, where is the evidence?

The angel spoke simply of an indefinite event which would take place some time during her marriage with Joseph.

The angel said no such thing. Nothing was said that she would become pregnant during her marriage to Joseph... and low and behold... she wasn't married when she did become pregnant... so you are terribly inaccurate here.

So she wondered how she could ever possibly conceive a child if she intended to remain a virgin.

Again, tell me why a young Jewish girl who is engaged to be married would be intending to stay a perpetual virgin. This must be addressed.

She must have asked herself whether God intended for her to dismiss her vow.

WHAT VOW??????????????????

Thus the angel assured her in reply to her question that the conception would be a supernatural one.

Of course because she got preggers before she was married!

She afterwards learned of Elizabeth's conception of John

Yes.

I fail to see what the Visitation has to do with this subject. If Mary had intended to have conjugal relations with Joseph, she wouldn't have asked the angel "How shall this be?"

First, YOU have to establish that a young Jewish girl would get engaged only to stay a perpetual virgin. Establish this belief of yours.

Second, she intended that she would stay a virgin until she was married... that was yet to come. The angel was in the here and now with Mary and low and behold, she got pregnant, just as she was confused about, prior her becoming one with Joseph.

Instead she would have asked When will this be? Case closed. She wasn't expecting a miraculous conception.

Of course she wasn't! that is why she is so dang confused.. she was STILL a virgin when she got this news!

But Mary asks "How"? By what manner or means?

By sex... just as I said... that is what she thought the angel was saying at first and she was probably horrified because she knew that she had remained chaste and was going to continue to do so until her wedding night.

You're shooting your own foot. By the way, you're off topic. This thread is about the queenship of Mary.

Been an interesting conversation!

Pax Christu
J.A. [/quote]

 

[justinangel]

You can repeat yourself all you want... knock yourself out. It matters not who the audience is... it is about translation and the vernacular of the audience that will be READING the word.

Haven't you heard of the literary device known as diction. Mark Twain preserves the idiomatic expressions of his characters regardless of who his readers are.

It is a big deal... there are words that relay the accuracy of relation and yet in this ONE passage they didn't accuratly relay relation??????? I happen to believe the accuracy of the words chosen... cousin, kin, relative is used to convey extended family, brother and sister to relay blood siblings.

Relative can mean either cousin or aunt. Scripture itself doesn't specify the relationship between Mary and Elizabeth. And even if they were cousins, the angel couldn't have used the word in Aramaic, not unlike the Jews in Mark 6:3. So it makes no difference.

LOL.... maybe he was just telling the reality.

Maybe. But it makes no difference.

[/quote] The Greek says they are cousins. [/quote]
Only in the Latin Vulgate and the KJV. Because we aren't sure, all other translations have either "relative or "kin" (sungenis) or sister (adelfe). But it doesn't matter, for the angel didn't speak Greek to Mary.

I can't. There is no such word as cousin... I have repeatedly stated this.

But according to your belief, Mark would have written the Greek word for cousin instead of "brothers" and "sisters" if those men and women accompanying Jesus weren't his siblings, for there is a Greek word for cousin. In your own words: "The Greek says they were cousins." You reject the idea that the author preserved the original terms used by the Jewish speakers. The most you can do is presume that the author meant siblings. And that's all you can do severed from the historic Christian faith and the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. But on your own you will never know the truth, choosing only to believe what you want to in accord with your sensibilities.

Scripture please.

Genesis 24, 59-60.

Both Rebekah's mother and her brother call her "sister" (adelfe) in the wider sense of the word instead of kin or relative (sungenis) although they are relatives. The original expression used by these Jews in the Hebrew is preserved in the Septuagint. We find the same in the Gospel of Mark. Several Protestant Bibles I checked have "sister" in these verses along with the Catholic Versions I read. And see Songs 4,12 where Solomon calls his wife "sister".

Why not... it does not matter who is saying what... the reality is translation.The NT that was written in GREEK (not a translation of a written text, but original) conveys to the READER relation between people. I believe it is accurately telling us that Jesus had brothers and sisters, Mary had a cousin (or kin, relative) named Elizabeth and so on and so forth...

Like I already said, Paul can use the word cousin (anepsios) when addressing Greek speaking people, for its part of their vocabulary. If the Septuagint translators had been as accurate as you assume they should have been we'd have Solomon call his spouse "wife" (ishshah) translated in the Greek, for the audience are Greek speaking Hellenistic Jews.

For you to be consistent.. you would have to then speculate that Mary, Martha and Lazarus may not be blood siblings... or for that matter, Simon and Andrew may not be blood siblings either. You speculate on the brothers and sisters of JEsus because of the ambiguity and varying uses of the word... but don't with Mary and Martha and Lazarus... why is that?

Mary, Martha, and Lazarus could be called "brother " and "sisters" for they were followers of Jesus, if not only relatives. The apostle Simon the Cananean couldn't have been a sibling of Jesus the Nazarene. Simon Peter and Andrew were uterine brothers and apostles. James and Joses were uterine brothers and sons of "the other Mary" who stood near the cross, making them cousins of Jesus. Nothing ambiguous here unless you complicate something clearly obvious and ignore what is already known to us.

To be continued.

PAX

 

[justinangel]

What? WE KNOW that they were not sisters because God tells us! It matters not to me that she may have been an aunt or cousin... this we know.. she was NOT Mary's sister... How do we know that, God tells us.

But we do not know for sure whether Elizabeth was Mary's cousin or aunt. God hasn't told us anything more specific than they were next of kin. Jerome obviously drew from one oral tradition between another. There are different traditions concerning even the year of Mary's death: something else God hasn't told us, for it has no bearing on our salvation.

Yes and then translated so the reader is very aware that they are NOT sisters. See how that works?

Catholics were already aware of the fact that Mary and Elizabeth weren't uterine sisters before Jerome translated the Bible from Greek to Latin.

Yes. It matters not that Paul was speaking Greek... the reality is the writer conveyed accurately what was said and showing clearly relation.

It does matter. For the Greeks have a word for cousin (anepsios). Paul isn't trying to convey anything semantically hidden. He's simply engaging in practical everyday speech when addressing Greeks. Do you think Paul's objective was to educate the Colossians on the relationship between Barnabas and Mark?

LOL... why are their writings not Canonized... gasp! Could it be because they are not the word of God? Them saying so is not EVIDENCE. I need first century, preferably any NT character teaching such things. That would be EVIDENCE. Good luck!

The writings of the early Church Fathers were not canonized because they weren't inspired by the Holy Spirit as were the authors of the sacred texts. But they were certainly guided by the Holy Spirit as they drew their teachings from both sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition: the deposit of faith, handed down from the apostles.

I suspect that you are attempting to belittle me.. .but I take it as a great compliment... yes, I go to scripture.... Starting from scratch, scripture is what the Bereans did and I think I will follow their lead... if I read a church father, I will go to scripture to see if what they say is true. Sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't and sometimes they say things that can't even be found in scripture. This I cannot trust as the word of God as there is no EVIDENCE that what they say is actually God breathed. Thank God, God in His mercy and wisdom had His word written down.

There is no attempt from me to belittle you. Moreover, Scripture is the result of the Apostolic Tradition of the Catholic Church, so it must be interpreted in light of this Tradition. No private individual has the charism and authority to interpret the Scriptures on her own. Nor can she know for sure that what she understands the written word to mean is true. Your attitude is a neo-gnostic one. You merely pick and choose what subjectively appeals to you. But the divine truth is objective, and so Jesus founded his one apostolic and universal Church with a central teaching authority (the episcopate and divine office) to be kept in place until he returns. "The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth." (1 Tim 3:15), not the Bible.

Did you know that there were false teaching and gospels during the time of the apostles? So Ignatius' testimony that is not canon means very little to me as I cannot find this teaching in scripture.

The Bishop of Antioch was no heretic. In fact his letters refute the heresies of his time that opposed the orthodox faith. He staunchly defended the Incarnation, having learned the faith through John himself who lived with Mary until she passed away.

It doesn't matter what you mean.... the hearer of your word without any other commentary could very well understand that they became noisy.

That's my point. Joseph and Mary did not necessarily have to have conjugal relations because of the conjunction "until". But we know by tradition that their marriage was a celibate one.

Again... it does not matter what you mean. Your statement as is, gives the hearer every indication that they were ONLY quiet while you were out.

Not in the least, unless I qualify my statement by another one that reveals the children became noisy after I returned to the classroom.

So you have been told. If what you say is true, Matthew would have written, And Joseph knew her not ever. Matthew does not qualify it though as ever, he is specific about time frame... till Jesus birth... not forever.

Matthew did not have to add the word "ever" because "until" doesn't function to denote a change of affairs. It may imply a change, but that only depends on the intention of the speaker. The evangelist's intention was to affirm the virgin birth, nothing more. You are reading into the text. On your own outside the Church and apart from Tradition you can never know for sure.

What you say makes no sense... or is it a lie or ignorance? You use the word "always believed" but are unable to substantiate "always" for you do not have documentation that it has always been believed. If it has always been beleived you would be able to show me EVIDENCE of the apostles or any of the first century church believing this. You can't... so it is a false claim to say "Always believed" you can believe that as opinion.. but you CANNOT state that as fact.

The unanimous teachings of the Church Fathers are enough evidence of their universality from the beginning. I've already cited Ignatius of Antioch and other early Church Fathers who refer to Mary's perpetual virginity, although they never wrote anything specific on this topic, unless there are works that were lost during the great persecutions. Meanwhile they surely preached it at sermons when treating the subject of Christian chastity. Our tradition is ongoing so we know that the perpetual virginity of Mary was always known.

What logic is that, that Mary was engaged to be married intending to stay a virgin for the rest of her life? Where is the logic in that? Further, where is the evidence?

If Mary had intended to have children with Joseph, she wouldn't have asked the angel How shall I conceive the child? A six year old will tell you that. And if she chose to remain a virgin, logic has nothing to do with it. Some Jewish couples have chosen to remain celibate in their marriage, although rarely.

The angel said no such thing. Nothing was said that she would become pregnant during her marriage to Joseph... and low and behold... she wasn't married when she did become pregnant... so you are terribly inaccurate here.

The angel simply said "You will conceive and bear a son...and you shall name him Jesus." He never specified when this would happen or implied its imminence.

Again, tell me why a young Jewish girl who is engaged to be married would be intending to stay a perpetual virgin. This must be addressed.

Her love for God and dediction to Him prompted by the Holy Spirit, for she was predestined to be the Mother of God. Judith chose never to remarry after her first husband died because of her love for God. She presented herself exclusively to Him alone.

WHAT VOW??????????????????
Of course because she got preggers before she was married!

We may conclude that Mary had made a vow of chastity, since it's obvious she intended to remain a virgin when she asked "How?". She was only 14 years old when the angel appeared to her and still innocent in her youth. Joseph was a middle-aged man. Mary would have married a much younger adult if she intended to have children.

First, YOU have to establish that a young Jewish girl would get engaged only to stay a perpetual virgin. Establish this belief of yours.

Divine providence. She couldn't have conceived Jesus out of lawful wedlock. God somehow joined the two so that Jesus could have a respectable family in Jewish society. We don't have any details concerning the arrangements made between Mary and Joseph by public revelation, only private to the saints and mystics. That was their personal affair: something else God hasn't told us in Scripture.

Second, she intended that she would stay a virgin until she was married... that was yet to come. The angel was in the here and now with Mary and low and behold, she got pregnant, just as she was confused about, prior her becoming one with Joseph.

Mary was already married to Joseph. Betrothal was the first stage of a lawful marriage. Consummation was reached in the second stage. Mary would have been confused if the angel had said You have conceived a child. For she knew that she could not have relations with Joseph during their betrothal according to Mosaic Law. And the angel gave no indication that she would conceive the child during her betrothal. Mary would have known that an angel of God would not expect her to violate the law. Luke is not alluding to any psychological state of Mary. He is revealing something mysterious of the divine plan.

Of course she wasn't! that is why she is so dang confused.. she was STILL a virgin when she got this news!

The news that she will conceive, not that she already has without her awareness.

By sex... just as I said... that is what she thought the angel was saying at first and she was probably horrified because she knew that she had remained chaste and was going to continue to do so until her wedding night.

The angel never said You have conceived. Better reopen your Bible.

Been an interesting conversation!

"I need a smoke after all this. Adios adelfe."


Pax Christu
J.A.