Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[Secundulus]

She knew and fully expected to consummate the marriage vow with blood.

It doesn't say that in scripture.

 

[Standing Up]

Originally Posted by Standing Up

She knew and fully expected to consummate the marriage vow with blood.
​

It doesn't say that in scripture.

She had to be betrothed:

Deut. 22:28-29 If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

And scripture says she remained betrothed to Joseph.

And if betrothed, then:

Deut. 20:7 And what man [is there] that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.

Again, I'm not saying anything against Mary. She was blessed and lived a "normal" life, being the mother of Jesus Christ who is God Incarnate.

 

[Secundulus]

Originally Posted by Standing Up

She knew and fully expected to consummate the marriage vow with blood.
​

She had to be betrothed:

Deut. 22:28-29 If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

And scripture says she remained betrothed to Joseph.

And if betrothed, then:

Deut. 20:7 And what man [is there] that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.

Again, I'm not saying anything against Mary. She was blessed and lived a "normal" life, being the mother of Jesus Christ who is God Incarnate.

I understand all that. But you are doing exactly what you castigate Catholics for. You are adding to the words of scripture to support a dogma that is not explicitly stated in scripture.

The Gospel of Luke does not state what you said.

 

[Thekla]

Gabriel doesn't say when, but the context surely wasn't 10 years hence. In fact, we should agree that it was at her consent. (See the "antitype" example of Eve's consent to the serpent; it was immediate.)

There is no indication in scripture that the conception would be at any particular time.

Mary isn't asking how will she conceive in a normal sense. She was betrothed; surely she had had the conversation of the marriage vow, etc.

There was no indication by Gabriel that the conception would not be in the normal sense.

So, Mary says, how will I conceive tomorrow, since I am a virgin. You will be overshadowed (soon, if you agree).

But where in scripture is tomorrow indicated ? Or any particular time, for that matter ?

But there is nothing there to suggest Mary thought how will I conceive tomorrow, since I will forever remain a virgin. She knew and fully expected to consummate the marriage vow with blood. That's why Joseph was going to 'put her away'. There wouldn't be any 'sealing ratification of the vow with blood'. (Ex. 24:8, Hbr. 12:24). He thought she was no longer a virgin. The LORD assured him otherwise.

There is no scriptural indication for any of this, though. But reading what is said in scripture, her statement does indeed refer to the future. "Not knowing a man" is a statement that covers the future.

I'm not trying to say anything against Mary. Obviously without her consent, we wouldn't be here as Christians talking about it. So, she was blessed, but she also understood deeply about her upcoming marriage.

There is no scriptural indication that her marriage was to be normal; her statement in Luke 1:34 indicates that it would not be.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If you do not understand what I said, you are welcome to ask questions.

Then once again (as has been done several times - you've never disputed my reviews of our conversations before - perhaps now you want to go back and do that?).

1. The topic of this thread is the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary, that Mary had no _____ E.V.E.R. I'm confident you've read the first word of the title. And I'm confident that since you've read my posts to you, THAT is the singular issue before us. PERPETUALITY. Specificly of Mary and Her virginity.

2. Our sister posted that the this issue is taught in Scirpture.

3. I asked where.

4. She gave one Scripture. Luke 1:34.

5. I reviewed it and said it says nothing about the topic, nothing about Her being a PERPETUAL virgin, nothing that specifically required that view.

6. She left, you assumed the position - arguing for her to me, assuming the apologetic.

7. You argued that the GRAMMAR of the verse requires this. Requires what? Read the first word of the title of the thread. Read all my posts to see the only issue I was discussing. That's what. You stated the GRAMMAR supported the view.

8. I noted that the verb is present active indicative and that my review of my kione grammar book indicates NOTHING about that tense mandating perpetuality - indeed, that's an entirely different Green verb tense, not the one used here.

9. You then began a long series of posts in a strong defense of your position: the grammar here mandates this. I kept asking you for something from some Greek grammar that states that, but instead you gave some Scirptures and made a number of claims - but nothing from any grammar book.

10. Meanwhile, you swayed to another point, that the CONTEXT of the verse required perpetuality. I kept asking you WHAT context, but you kept changing your answer. At times it seemed to be the "shall" but of course, that only refers to future not perpetuality. "I shall buy a car" does not mean I will buy a car every day of my life unitl I day - it's indefinate, it suggest NOTHING vis-a-vis PERPETUALTIY (the sole, only, exclusive topic of our converstation; read the first word in the title of the thread). Then, no, it was what Mary might have been thinking at that moment, but I noted that's YOUR view imputed into the text (eisegesis), not the context of the text. So, we never resolved your "context" point. In any case, it's moot to the grammar here as I noted that not a single Bible translation - including Catholic ones - translates the verse the way you state the grammar MANDATES that it does, you seem to be basing your entire apologetic on a rule no one else knows about or employs.

11. I noted that the scholar you quoted actually indicates that the verb does not mandate perpetuality.

12 Then you made the surprising announcenet that you were'nt talking about the issue of this thread or the sole issue of our conversattion - PERPETUALITY, so I asked you what you WERE talking about in this thread about perpetuality in a conversation with me exclusively about perpetuality? You didn't answer.

13. You then seemed to get a bit personal and seemed to suggest you desire to no longer discuss the grammar of the verse with me. I didn't bring it up. YOU did. In response to our Orthodox sister stating this verse proves the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary and my note that it did not. YOU are the one that said the GRAMMAR does. It's YOUR point; I don't know why you are now so uncomfortable with the points, it's yours.

That's how I see the situation. I've made a review like this 2 or 3 times in our converstation and you've never disputed the earlier ones. Are you now?





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Or any particular time, for that matter ?

There is no scriptural indication for any of this

If you are now insisting that the future of this present tense verb is INDEFINATE, then how can you insist that it is until her death/undeath? Which is it: the verb MANDATES perpetuality, or it is indefinate? Is there Scriptural indication or not?


.

 

[Standing Up]

I understand all that.

Really? Then we should agree.

But you are doing exactly what you castigate Catholics for. You are adding to the words of scripture to support a dogma that is not explicitly stated in scripture.

The Gospel of Luke does not state what you said.

It's not my dogma whether she remained a virgin or not. I don't even know why it matters .

Well, that's not exactly true anymore, but it was true up until today , since in this conversation I've come to see why it would matter that she and Joseph HAD TO consumate the betrothal.

If they didn't, then Jesus' claim through Joseph would be invalid. The two earthly "parents" had to be made one flesh, so their Son would be adopted. It's through Joseph that His lineage is traced back also (not physically, since He was born of the virgin, but legally) to Abraham--through you I LORD will bless ...

Deut. 20:7 And what man [is there] that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.

THAT, going with another man, MY FRIEND, if I may so speak, WOULD NOT HAPPEN.

And if it didn't happen (consummation of the marriage between Mary and Joseph), then the genalogy is INVALID.

 

[Standing Up]

I want to backtrack a bit if I may. I changed 'tomorrow' for 'future'.

SUP: How will I conceive in the future, since I am today a virgin **** and plan to still be a virgin, and if things were "normal" after this angelic visitation would still be a virgin, up until the day I am married to the one to whom I am betrothed.****

Yes; that's a good summary.


The shall is open to the entire future. The entire future of a betrothed woman.

It seems to me that you're assuming in all of this that she never became pregnant. I know that's not what you mean, but it seems that way.

How shall I conceive in the future because I am a virgin right now, she asked?

Yes, but that first part ended. God overshadowed her, she did conceive, and was still a virgin. Right?

 

[Thekla]

=Standing Up;53319190]I want to backtrack a bit if I may. I changed 'tomorrow' for 'future'.

SUP: How will I conceive in the future, since I am today a virgin **** and plan to still be a virgin, and if things were "normal" after this angelic visitation would still be a virgin, up until the day I am married to the one to whom I am betrothed.****



It seems to me that you're assuming in all of this that she never became pregnant. I know that's not what you mean, but it seems that way.

She did indeed conceive, but not by 'knowing a man'.
She did not question Gabriel's announcement, nor God's will.
She questioned how a conception would be possible in the future as she would not know a man.

How shall I conceive in the future because I am a virgin right now, she asked?

I disagree. More accurately she questioned how a future conception could be possible. Again, the future tense of shall includes the entire future as there is no stated limit.

Yes, but that first part ended. God overshadowed her, she did conceive, and was still a virgin. Right?

Yes, she conceived by the Holy Spirit.
But her statement does not include the possibility of conceiving by 'knowing a man'.

 

[Thekla]

Then once again (as has been done several times - you've never disputed my reviews of our conversations before - perhaps now you want to go back and do that?).

I don't know what you mean.

5. I reviewed it and said it says nothing about the topic, nothing about Her being a PERPETUAL virgin, nothing that specifically required that view.

That is your opinion; you have not supported it.

7. You argued that the GRAMMAR of the verse requires this. Requires what? Read the first word of the title of the thread. Read all my posts to see the only issue I was discussing. That's what. You stated the GRAMMAR supported the view.

Please quote my post rather than describe it.

8. I noted that the verb is present active indicative and that my review of my kione grammar book indicates NOTHING about that tense mandating perpetuality - indeed, that's an entirely different Green verb tense, not the one used here.

Nor did I ever say the present active indicative mandated perpetuity.

9. You then began a long series of posts in a strong defense of your position: the grammar here mandates this. I kept asking you for something from some Greek grammar that states that, but instead you gave some Scirptures and made a number of claims - but nothing from any grammar book.

I will end here, as you still misrepresent what I stated. Thus, there is no need to continue.

You do not need to discuss this with me to opine that you have discussed this with me; after all, you insist on speaking for me whilst misstating what I said.

'nuf

 

[Standing Up]

I disagree. More accurately she questioned how a future conception could be possible. Again, the future tense of shall includes the entire future as there is no stated limit.

So even though she was betrothed to Joseph, you believe she was saying she would remain a virgin in that marriage, regardless of this angelic encounter?

 

[Secundulus]

The answer may lie in the Protoevangelium of James c. 150AD. It is not scripture so it is not necessary to believe it. However, it is early and reveals the beliefs of early Christians.

The Protoevangelium of James

 

[Thekla]

So even though she was betrothed to Joseph, you believe she was saying she would remain a virgin in that marriage, regardless of this angelic encounter?

Yes, as she says this. To add: the "active" part of the verb tense shows that this is by her action/intention. (This is why it is considered to indicate a vow; in the OT it is stated that a woman's vow to God is to be honored by her father and husband.)

 

[Standing Up]

So even though she was betrothed to Joseph, you believe she was saying she would remain a virgin in that marriage, regardless of this angelic encounter?

Yes, as she says this. To add: the "active" part of the verb tense shows that this is by her action/intention. (This is why it is considered to indicate a vow; in the OT it is stated that a woman's vow to God is to be honored by her father and husband.)

Okay, find the OT scripture

 

[Thekla]

Numbers 30:

3“When a young woman still living in her father’s house makes a vow to the Lord or obligates herself by a pledge 4and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand. 5But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the Lord will release her because her father has forbidden her.
6“If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself 7and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. 8But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the Lord will release her.

 

[Secundulus]

NASB95, Numbers 30:2-7
"If a man makes a vow to the Lord, or takes an oath to bind himself with a binding obligation, he shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.

"Also if a woman makes a vow to the Lord, and binds herself by an obligation in her father’s house in her youth,
and her father hears her vow and her obligation by which she has bound herself, and her father says nothing to her, then all her vows shall stand and every obligation by which she has bound herself shall stand.
"But if her father should forbid her on the day he hears of it, none of her vows or her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand; and the Lord will forgive her because her father had forbidden her.
"However, if she should marry while under her vows or the rash statement of her lips by which she has bound herself,
and her husband hears of it and says nothing to her on the day he hears it, then her vows shall stand and her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand.

oops, I was too slow.​

 

[Standing Up]

The answer may lie in the Protoevangelium of James c. 150AD. It is not scripture so it is not necessary to believe it. However, it is early and reveals the beliefs of early Christians.

The Protoevangelium of James

We already did this with Melito in the other thread. It is closed, but I have to correct your Melito reference.

(Ps.-)Melito of Sardis, The Passing of Blessed Mary​

That Ps. means pseudograph. No one attributes that letter to the real Melito of Sardis. And even if someone did, there is absolutely no way that the real Melito would have written any of it.

He did, however, really pen, Mary fair sheep of the flock. He honored her. But not the other stuff.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

We already did this with Melito in the other thread. It is closed, but I have to correct your Melito reference.

(Ps.-)Melito of Sardis, The Passing of Blessed Mary​

That Ps. means pseudograph. No one attributes that letter to the real Melito of Sardis. And even if someone did, there is absolutely no way that the real Melito would have written any of it.

He did, however, really pen, Mary fair sheep of the flock. He honored her. But not the other stuff.

Yea I saw that brought up on the other thread.

Btw, can I get you to vote on my thread here?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7400512/

 

[Thekla]

On celibacy in Judaism:

• Even the 2nd century AD Hasidic miracle-worker, the Galilean rabbi Pinhas ben Yair taught that abstinence was essential to reception of prophetic wisdom and the Holy Spirit. [JJ:102]

4. Although the Rabbinic writers stressed the importance of marriage for procreation, it is noteworthy that this prophetic ideal of celibacy still showed up in the rabbinics:



"Judaism saw nothing wrong in portraying as celibate the great primordial prophet, seer, and lawgiver Moses (though only after the Lord had begun to speak to him). We see this interpretation already beginning to develop in Philo in the 1st century A.D. What is more surprising is that this idea is also reflected in various rabbinic passages. The gist of the tradition is an a fortiori argument. If the Israelites at Sinai had to abstain from women temporarily to prepare for God's brief, once-and- for-all address to them, how much more should Moses be permanently chaste, since God spoke regularly to him (see, e.g., b. Yabb. 87a). The same tradition, but from the viewpoint of the deprived wife, is related in the Sipre on Numbers 12.1 (99). Since the rabbis in general were unsympathetic--not to say hostile--to religious celibacy, the survival of this Moses tradition even in later rabbinic writings argues that the tradition was long-lived and widespread by the time of the rabbis. We should note once again the typology seen in Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and the recycled Moses figure: the prophet who directly receives divine revelation that is to be communicated to his beloved yet sinful people Israel finds his whole life radically altered by his prophetic vocation. This alteration, this being set apart by and for God's Word, is embodied graphically in the rare, awesome, and--for many Jews--terrible vocation of celibacy....While accepting the idea of an ancient figure like Moses as celibate (at least during his ministry to Israel), the rabbis did not as a general rule allow celibacy among their rabbinic colleagues and disciples. Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (end of 1st century A.D.) is said to have equated a man's refusal to procreate offspring with murder. One rare exception, according to the same rabbinic passage, was Rabbi Simeon ben Azzai (a younger contemporary of Eliezer ben Hyrcanus), who paradoxically recommended marriage and procreation, though he himself remained unmarried. When accused of not practicing what he preached, he replied: "My soul is in love with the Torah. The world can be carried on by others" (b. Yeham. 63b).65

"That such a 'deviant' tradition could be enshrined in the Babylonian Talmud may suggest that celibacy, though frowned upon by the rabbis, was not totally stamped out in Judaism during the centuries immediately following the Baptist and Jesus. More to the point, though ben Azzai is hardly a Jeremiah or a Baptist, his rationale for celibacy is at root similar to that of the more overtly prophetic figures: an all- consuming commitment to God's word in one's whole life precludes the usual path of marriage and child-rearing. In view of this "marginal" tradition in early Judaism, it is hardly surprising that the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes has no difficulty in seeing Jesus as celibate and explaining his unusual state by his prophetic call and the reception of the Spirit." [MJ:1.340f]

Note: Geza Vermes summary is: "Against such a background of first-century AD Jewish opinion, namely that the prophetic destiny entailed amongst other things a life of continence, Jesus' apparent voluntary embrace of celibacy, at any rate from the time of his reception of the holy spirit, becomes historically meaningful." [JJ:101]

from: Good question

As stated previously, it was believed in some rabbinic circles that Moses, having been in close contact with God (Mt. Sinai), became celibate from then on. (This is also stated in Midrash.)

It would not be surprising for Mary to do so as well; it can certainly be argued that had she not remained celibate after such an encounter, this would be considered evidence that she did not conceive by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Standing Up]

On celibacy in Judaism:

from: Good question

As stated previously, it was believed in some rabbinic circles that Moses, having been in close contact with God (Mt. Sinai), became celibate from then on. (This is also stated in Midrash.)

It would not be surprising for Mary to do so as well; it can certainly be argued that had she not remained celibate after such an encounter, this would be considered evidence that she did not conceive by the Holy Spirit.

Some might twist it to that, but without any scriptural support or tradition support. So no, I wouldn't fear that.

OTOH, it may work in reverse. Besides, wasn't that gnosticism (flesh is bad?).