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.
The Bible confirms it, and it is also undisputed in the Christian world, that an angel of God came to Mary and told her that God had chosen her to be the mother of God. The angel told Mary: 30 "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call his name JESUS." (Luke 1:30,31) Mary accepted the will of God the Father and she became heavy with child.
Now think about this for a moment. An angel of God actually came to Mary and spoke God's will. She not only believed by faith alone, but God revealed His will unto her through His angel. Mary's response was an incredible act of faith and devotion because it showed pure and unconditional obedience to God. Then Mary said, "Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word." (Luke 1:38)
Mary took on the responsibility of bringing forth the Son of God in a society where unwed mothers were subject to terrible shame and immediate stoning. She submitted her body and soul to God's will in order that Jesus Christ may come into the world. Isn't it just a little bit ridiculous to think that once she gave birth to Christ she became just another woman? Isn't her devotion to God sufficient to realize that once she gave birth to the Son of God all her other worldly concerns took a back seat. All of us readily accept the idea that thousands of men and women every year take a vow of celibacy and choose to devote body and soul to God. These men and women voluntarily choose and ascetic life and become monks and nuns. They do so of their own free will based on sheer faith and devotion to Christ. They are not visited by angels of God, and they are not asked to bear our Lord Jesus Christ in their womb. If we believe these Christians can renounce physical desires and subscribe their lives to Christ, why is it so hard to believe that the Virgin Mary renounced her own physical desires and submitted her life to God. Protestants seem to hold ordinary men and women to a higher standard than the one and only mother of the Son of God. Now, that doesn't seem logical does it?
What's even more interesting is that Protestant Christians today don't seem to question the ability of Buddhist monks or other eastern spiritualists to completely submit control of their physical bodies to the power of the mind and spirit. Their abilities, and that of many others like them, are neither challenged, nor looked upon suspiciously, nor considered impossible. They are simply asserting control of mind over matter. But God forbid that such physical subordination should be the result of spiritual faith, purity of soul, and complete devotion to the one true God!
Spiritual superiority and abstinent lifestyles seem to be relegated only to other faiths and other people, except members of Christ's family and the early followers and Disciples of Christ. Those who walked with Jesus apparently could not master their physical urges and achieve the saintly transformation we have witnesses millions of times since the foundation of the Christian faith. The lengths and contortions through which modern Protestant scholars go to justify their illogical theological theories have to be counteracted with an equally strong argument. This must be done in order to show just how out of touch they are with common sense, historical traditions, and the truth. I hope this series achieves that purpose and exemplifies the profound bias that is so evident to me personally.
If someone has a personal encounter with the angel of the Lord you can be certain that experience will leave a lasting and significant impact on that person's life. Now add to that Mary's extraordinary faith and complete submission of body and soul to God, her absolute purity and sanctity of spirit, and her essential task of raising and caring for the Son of God, and I think you'll understand why the idea that Mary just kept on living a regular, "run of the mill" life seems more and more preposterous.
IMHO, you can't argue both sides of the coin at the same time:
The Virgin Mary - part 3 (an Orthodox perspective)A survey of Scriptures regarding the use of the word until shed some light on that mystery. In the Old Testament, in the book of Genesis, there is one example of its use: 6 At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made 7 and sent out a raven; and it went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth. (Genesis 8:6,7) Following the other presumed interpretation of until used in Matthew would imply that the raven never flew again once the waters dried up. Now that doesn't sound rational does it?
Again in Psalm 110:1 the Scripture describes God the Father addressing Jesus: The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool." Does that mean that Christ will stop sitting at the right hand of the Father once God makes Christ's enemies His footstool? If we follow Protestant logic in its treatment of the word until, then these verses are saying exactly that. That's not a believable explanation of this passage and no Christian would ever agree with that description of its meaning. Yet if there is to be overall consistency throughout the Bible then according to the Protestant definition of the word until in the Gospel of Matthew, there can't be any other possible interpretation.
There are many more passages in the Holy Scriptures that also support similar interpretations of "until." I have included belose Father Peter Gillquist's own magnificent analysis on this very topic.
From a Scriptural standpoint, the presence of the phrase "till she had brought forth her firstborn Son," does not automatically mean that Joseph must have had a sexual union with her afterward. In both Greek and Hebrew the word until (or till or to) can have several meanings. We find it in II Samuel 6:23: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to (until) the day of her death." It is used again in Matthew 28:20 where the risen Christ says, "Lo, I am with you always, even to (until) the end of the age." And in Deuteronomy 34:6 we read, "[Moses was buried] in a valley in the land of Moab. . . but no one knows his grave to (until) this day." Obviously the use of the word in these passages does not imply that Michal has a child after her death, that Christ will no longer be with us at the end of the world, or that Moses' burial place was discovered the day Deuteronomy 34:6 was written. By the same token, the word until in Matthew 1:25 does not mean that Joseph and Mary began a sexual union after Christ was born. Such a teaching is found nowhere in Scripture and is contrary to the consistent voice of the entire early Church.
On one hand we have many instances in the Bible where the word until is used one way; as in the examples above. Then there is one instance and one instance alone, in the Gospel of Matthew, when all of a sudden the very same word until is being interpreted by western scholars completely different than before. Not only is the definition of this word diametrically opposed to all the other times it gets used in both the Old and New Testaments, but it would also be the only verse in the entire Bible that mentions that Joseph "knew" the Virgin Mary. Since the universal view of all Christians, Orthodox, Catholics and Protestant alike, is that the Scriptures represent the true word of God, it is irrational to believe that God could contradict Himself by giving the word until different interpretations.
This is very confusing truly confusing.....
"i drink coffee" it does include future action.... that proves you are a coffee drinker and that implies you will continue to beis it not? It does NOT exlude future action neither...so why argue about it?
Ever-Virginity The Orthodox Christian Church has always held her to be in truth Ever-Virgin knowing her personally from the beginning one generation to the next and then passing the truths on from , never expanding nor subtracting from what was known in the beginning.
Traditionally, I have not believed in the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary citing the numerous times in the Gospels that Jesus' brothers (Greek=adelphois) as proof that Jesus must have had siblings. Of course I am aware of the the counter argument that adelphos (this is the singular of adelphois) can also mean cousin but traditionally I have rejected that idea with the reasoning that the 'usual' meaning of adelphos is brother and that there was no reason to use the secondary reason.
However, I thought of something recently. In the Gospel of John 19 (the crucifixion) it says this.
Now if Jesus had siblings, he was obviously the oldest and thus would ahve been charged with caring for his mother once his father was out of the picture (and seeing as Joseph never appears, we can assume that he is dead by this point). Upon the death of the oldest son, care for the mother would pass to the next oldest son. However, that is not what happens here. Jesus instead asks a friend to care for his mother and commands them to know each other as if they were mother and son.
I know that this does not prove the perpetual virginity. After all, one can have sex without concieving or Joseph and Mary could have had only females (who in the society would not have been able to care for Mary for the same reasons that Mary could not care for herself). But I do think that it lends credence to translatingadelphois as 'cousins' and certainly makes the idea of the perpetual virginity much more plausible.
Does anyone have any thoughts? Did I miss anything or is this already common knowledge?
BTF
You and Philothei both have the patience of Job.
Well.... running with that.... I'm following you UNTIL the very last illogical, noncontextual, assumptive leap.
It does NOT mandate UNTIL DEATH.
Either the future is indefinate in which case it does NOT confirm perpetuality OR it means "until the moment of your death/undeath" in which case you've failed to show that's the sole meaning of the of PRESENT active indicative.
The sole question is this: Does the grammar here mandate PERPETUALITY. There's no dispute that she was a virgin at the moment she said that she was.
You have not provided an analogous statement; there is no context.It's indefinate, it does not require perpetuality. "I will go to Hawaii" does not mean that I will be going to Hawaii all the days of the rest of my life and will die going to Hawaii.
Sorry, I fail to see how all this confirms that the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary was taught 'ALWAYS, FROM THE BEGINNING, IN EVERY GENERATION."
No one said the Scripture forbids the understanding of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. YOUR point is that it CONFIRMS it. This verse is YOUR apologetic for YOUR point - PERPETUALITY.
Your position is that my position is incorrect; that is a position (albeit presently unsupported).You seem to forget, I didn't bring up this verse. You did.
I didn't suggest that this verse confirms my view (I don't have one). You did.
If you are going to continue to reference this verse as your apologetic for the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary, then you need to evidence that the mandated meaning is PERPETUALITY. Otherwise, the apologetic is moot.
IMHO, you can't argue both sides of the coin at the same time: The future (??!!) is indefinate AND it means until She died/undied.
The point was made here that the GRAMMAR of the verse mandates perpetuality. Perhaps you disagree with that point. If you do, then we are left with the words themselves - and as we all know, there's nothing here about perpetuality.
There is no context that mandates that Mary will not know a man on the day of her death/undeath. She speaks of her virginity in the PRESENT ACTIVE INDICTATIVE. There's no context here that speaks of ANYTHING when Mary would be 72 years old. Much less on the day of her death (or undeath depending on your view - I don't know what the Orthodox teach as to whether She died or not).
You seem to forget I have no position to support.
You do.
It's YOU insisting that this verse confirms the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary.
Not just future virginity (whether such be 1 minute or 62 years - the verse doesn't explicitely state), but PERPETUALITY.
No, I never said the verse FORBIDS that understanding, it's your position that it REQUIRES that understanding.
The ball is YOURS. It's been in your court for 20 PAGES of posts now. There have been several attempts to pass it to me, but I've never said this verse confirms the perpetual virginity of Mary - you did.
I never said the grammar requires that - that's the position you are defending. I never said this is my apologetic for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, I never even said I think the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is true!!! It's YOUR position, YOUR apologetic, YOUR point.
Your position is that my position is incorrect; that is a position
ah.... I think you are doing this since you say you are not trying to disprove it....niether to prove it... This is very confusing truly confusing.....-snip-
-snip-
Show me the "hard core" forensic evidence that the Bible was indeed a doc written as early as the 2nd century......Cause there is no existing text to witness to it..... And in all reality we do believe "by faith" ONLY that such texts existed
God bless,
P.
Actually, asceticism (fasting, chastity, etc.) was included in the NT, and early Church. Note that John the Baptist and Paul were chaste; Christ speaks of being "eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven".Well, that is how I came into the conversation, not having a position one way or the other. And quite frankly, I still have no clue as to why it is important the ever-virginity. Although, apparently, after the "martyr period", say 325, the "ascetic period" arose. Evidently that is when this idea arose as well, that is why it is important (unless of course you can somehow produce written texts from earlier that say otherwise).
The Greek word for uncle is not used for Abraham; Abraham and Lot are called "adelphos". Adelphos means more than just brother and uncle; it denotes any patriarchal (father/arche -origin, primary, first) relationship (tribe, country, household, stepsibs, kinsmen, etc.).Some argue that Joseph had sons from another marriage. If so, then they are the legal heirs to the throne, being the first-born. That argument, therefore, is wrong.
Some argue that brothers means uncles. But there is a Greek word for uncle used in scripture. So, if that was the meaning, the writers would have used that meaning. They didn't, therefore, that argument is flat.
Some wonder why Jesus would turn Mary over to John, if there were other brothers and sisters to care for her. This of course was pre-resurrection and none of them believed on Him. Hence, this is not an argument proving brothers. As well, there are, as some know, other historic/spiritual reasons for doing this. John (his lineage) taking care of the Church as it were (I wonder what the Peter folk think about this?)
Unusual, but not a contradiction; there were others who were chaste in the Bible.As to the idea, Mary took a vow of ever-virgin before the angelic encounter, this would be a contradiction to scripture.
So I do not believe she would execute that. (Be fruitful and multiply or Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle. --- she wouldn't "go against" the blessing. As well, we don't read of her doing that in scripture.)
So, hope that helps
but to be able to argue postion..... one has to have the "anti-thesis" so the other the "thesis" if those two are not vis-a-vis each other....how can there be converstation? 'This is what makes this whole "discussion" instead of a plain out discussion a confussion.
If one sits on the fence and tells both sides you are wrong and you are wrong....the fact he sits on the fence is by all means a position that to tell "both others" that they are wrong.
.
But TWO denominations are dividing Christianity, telling others they are fundamentally WRONG in a matter of highest importance, perhaps even questioning their soul and salvation, shouting to the very highest level a point of about Our Lady's ____ life.
.
It is a matter of highest importance among Christians that all drink 4 oz. of gin every day - or you are a heretic, apostate, and the salvation of your soul is at least in question, and we will excommunicate you from the Church of God!"
Josiah said:
Look, if a Protestant denomination or two where to state as a matter of highest importance that Mary Had Pink Hair - I just have a hunch we'd have a number of Catholic and Orthodox posters asking for the confirmation for this matter of dogma. Now, they need NOT have a dogma that Mary Had Red Hair (maybe they think it unknown or moot what color hair She had), but if they are being told they are WRONG in a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty (heretic? My priest, "There are no heretic in heaven!"), I just have a hunch they'd ask for some reasonal basis for the DOGMA.
The 49,998 denominations are SILENT on the matter of Mary's _____ life after Jesus was born are apt to believe this is respectful to Our Blessed Lady. They are apt to believe God in Scripture is silent on this matter. They are apt to regard that the earliest Tradition in this matter was also silence. They are apt to believe the affirmation/confirmation or ANYTHING in regard to Her ____ life after Jesus was born doesn't suggest ANY dogma about it. They are apt to believe Christians generally should be silent on how often a loving couple has _____, probably not the "stuff" for DOGMA. NONETHELESS, they aren't saying the two or three denominations that DO make a huge fuss over this are WRONG to believe what they do (they MAY think it strange, but not WRONG).
But TWO denominations are dividing Christianity, telling others they are fundamentally WRONG in a matter of highest importance, perhaps even questioning their soul and salvation, shouting to the very highest level a point of about Our Lady's ____ life. They must do what they demand all others to do: substantiate their position. Look, someone can say, "I think drinking gin is good." Fine. I have no opinion about gin (never tasted it), but hey, no problem with me. But when they say, "It is a matter of highest importance among Christians that all drink 4 oz. of gin every day - or you are a heretic, apostate, and the salvation of your soul is at least in question, and we will excommunicate you from the Church of God!" Well, then, perhaps now booted out, condemned, is it UNREASONABLE to ask, "What's the substantiation for this view about daily drinking 4 oz of gin?" I don't think so. Even if I've never tasted gin. Even if I don't care if YOU drink it or not. IMHO, we are to be united. It's necessary we AT LEAST UNDERSTAND what divides us. Since the insistence to the very highest level is that I'm WRONG in a matter of extreme importance, the LEAST one should be able to do is clearly state why. Not 95 pages of evasions and ridicule and diversions, not a constant, "I'm right so I'm right and therefore you're wrong." "How RUDE for you to even think about the ____ life of Mary, but yes, we SHOUT about that every issue and regard it a subject of highest importance but you are RUDE to even bring it up." (YES, that IS primarily what we get).
.
You cannot believe that to "embrace" that view is ok while to call it a dogma is wrong..
EV was ALWAYS in the trad of the church was told to you time and time again ....
Your million proto denominations disregard it for 200 years so?
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?