Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It doesn't say that in scripture.She knew and fully expected to consummate the marriage vow with blood.
It doesn't say that in scripture.
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.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.
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.)
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.
So, Mary says, how will I conceive tomorrow, since I am a virgin. You will be overshadowed (soon, if you agree).
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.
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.
If you do not understand what I said, you are welcome to ask questions.
Or any particular time, for that matter ?
There is no scriptural indication for any of this
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.
Yes; that's a good summary.
The shall is open to the entire future. The entire future of a betrothed woman.
=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.
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.How shall I conceive in the future because I am a virgin right now, she asked?
Yes, she conceived by the Holy Spirit.Yes, but that first part ended. God overshadowed her, she did conceive, and was still a virgin. Right?
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?).
That is your opinion; you have not supported it.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.
Please quote my post rather than describe 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.
Nor did I ever say the present active indicative mandated perpetuity.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.
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?
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.)
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.
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
Yea I saw that brought up on the other thread.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.
from: Good question
- 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]
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?