Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[Thekla]

Mary will have a son in the future.

She asks, How will I have a child in the future, I am a virgin presently.

Your barren cousin became pregnant; nothing is impossible with God.

She is betrothed which is typically followed by marriage; Gabriel does not reveal when the future conception will take place. Mary's question and description of not knowing a man covers the future (which includes betrothal and typically marriage).

Gabriel reveals Elizabeth's pregnancy after Mary's question.

 

[Standing Up]

The duration of the condition/action described by the present tense verb is governed by the context.

Gabriel announces a future conception ("shall").
Mary is betrothed, which is typically followed by marriage.
Mary responds by asking how this future conception (shall) can take place as she does "know not man". Thus, the duration of the condition "know not man" is governed by "shall/future" which includes all of the future if not limited by context (including statement). There is no limit provided by context.
Thus, per Hellenistic grammar the duration of "know not man" is continuous.
The "active" in present active indicative denotes that this is decided and acted on by Mary (she is the actor). This is her decision.

Okay. But she is betrothed. She planned to get married. She knew about that blood covenant.

 

[Thekla]

Okay. But she is betrothed. She planned to get married. She knew about that blood covenant.

Gabriel reveals that she will conceive in the future (shall). He never states how long from his speaking "shall" will be.

Mary also refers to in the future (shall); her future includes betrothal (as well as presently) and typically marriage. The future of shall is ongoing.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Gabriel reveals that she will conceive in the future (shall). He never states how long from his speaking "shall" will be.

Mary also refers to in the future (shall); her future includes betrothal (as well as presently) and typically marriage. The future of shall is ongoing.

It seems that Matt 1:25 and Luke 1:34 are the verses most used in this discussion.
I have them here along with the greek texts.

Luke 1:34 Said yet Mariam toward the Messenger "how shall be this, since a man not I am knowing/ginwskw <1097> (5719)"

ginwskw <1097> (5719) vi present Active 1 Sing.

Textus Rec.) Luke 1:34 eipen de mariam proV ton aggelon pwV estai touto epei andra ou ginwskw

Matt 1:25 And not he knew/eginwsken <1097> (5707) her untill/ewV <2193> of which she brought forth the son of her the firstborn and he calls the name of Him Jesus

eginwsken <1097> (5707) vi imperfect Act 3 Sing

Textus Rec.) Matthew 1:25 kai ouk eginwsken authn ewV ou eteken ton uion authV ton prwtotokon kai ekalesen to onoma autou ihsoun

 

[Standing Up]

Gabriel reveals that she will conceive in the future (shall). He never states how long from his speaking "shall" will be.

Mary also refers to in the future (shall); her future includes betrothal (as well as presently) and typically marriage. The future of shall is ongoing.

Okay, we don't know how many days thereafter, but Lk. 1:42 indicates it was probably within moments of her agreement.

Most agree that Jesus and John were 6 months apart, which is what is said immediately after the angel's visit.

So, how will I have a son, I am presently a virgin. True. And nearly immediately she became pregnant.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Gabriel reveals that she will conceive in the future (shall). He never states how long from his speaking "shall" will be.

Exactly. Thus, your position that grammatically it MUST mean for all perpetuity is incorrect.

That IS the context of the discussion. That IS the topic of this thread. That IS the point for that verse being brought up. That IS the singular issue of our discussion.

If it does not teach perpetuity, then it's moot to this discussion, which IS perpetuity. And you disagree with the point made that you've been defending for so very long.

Mary also refers to in the future (shall); her future includes betrothal (as well as presently) and typically marriage. The future of shall is ongoing.

... All issues YOU are imposing upon the text. It's not the TEXTUAL context, it's YOUR context imposed. You are simply assuming your assumptions correct, assuming what Mary might have been thinking, declaring yourself correct - and then noting that you agree with yourself.

POINT: As you now seem to be admitting, your point that the GRAMMAR mandates perpetuality just isn't true. The context doesn't mandate what you say it does, the grammar doesn't mandate what you say it does. So, I return to the beginning of our conservation: The point was that Luke 1:34 teaches the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary (read the title of this thread if you've forgotten what the subject is). While the original poster long abandoned the point, YOU took it up - trying to say that it's true: this verse mandates the point (the perpetuality of the virginity of Mary). Because the GRAMMAR mandates (your constant point about how it's in the PRESENT active indictative). Now you seem to be suggesting that actually, your point is wrong and the grammar does NOT mandate the perpetuality of Mary's virginity, that she had no ____ EVER, and that you are reversing your position that the verse does just that and that the grammar mandates that?



.

 

[Thekla]

Okay, we don't know how many days thereafter, but Lk. 1:42 indicates it was probably within moments of her agreement.

Most agree that Jesus and John were 6 months apart, which is what is said immediately after the angel's visit.

So, how will I have a son, I am presently a virgin. True. And nearly immediately she became pregnant.

We know when the conception occurred retrospectively (because we are told this). There is no mention of when the future event will occur. Gabriel does not reveal when in the future this would occur.

 

[Thekla]

Exactly. Thus, your position that grammatically it MUST mean for all perpetuity is incorrect.



.

I have not stated this.
Please detract your inaccurate statements.
I have a list of post #s; misrepresentation is not a feature of honest discussion.

I am of the impression that CF does not promote dishonesty in discussions.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It seems that Matt 1:25 and Luke 1:34 are the verses most used in this discussion.
I have them here along with the greek texts.

Luke 1:34 Said yet Mariam toward the Messenger "how shall be this, since a man not I am knowing/ginwskw <1097> (5719)"

ginwskw <1097> (5719) vi present Active 1 Sing.

Textus Rec.) Luke 1:34 eipen de mariam proV ton aggelon pwV estai touto epei andra ou ginwskw

Matt 1:25 And not he knew/eginwsken <1097> (5707) her untill/ewV <2193> of which she brought forth the son of her the firstborn and he calls the name of Him Jesus

eginwsken <1097> (5707) vi imperfect Act 3 Sing

Textus Rec.) Matthew 1:25 kai ouk eginwsken authn ewV ou eteken ton uion authV ton prwtotokon kai ekalesen to onoma autou ihsoun

Ahhhh....I found a thread on it

http://www.christianforums.com/t734140/
Does Matthew 1.25 refute the perpetual virginity of Mary?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Ahhhh....I found a thread on it

http://www.christianforums.com/t734140/
Does Matthew 1.25 refute the perpetual virginity of Mary?

This arguement has been going on for 5 years on CF!!!

10th August 2004, 12:04 AM

Edit to add: I resurrected the quoted thread and asked if it could be brought over to this board for more discussion....

 

[Dorothea]

1. If you are correct and Christians have affirmed this for 1800 years, then there is an earlier Tradition that was displaced by this one.

Yep, and that earlier tradition was that the Theotokos was ever-Virgin. It was discussed in the following centuries due to people coming about with false teachings against this right teaching, thus it was thrown out at that time (was it the 5th century? or 4th). all of what was believed from the beginning is reiterated in the EC's later on out of defending the Truth. There was no need to bring these things up beforehand because there were no disputes. So, until there was a dispute on such beliefs, it was not brought to attention of the councils and such. Understand?

 

[Dorothea]

2. Today some 99,998 denominations (if we accept our Orthodox sister's claim of 100,000 denominations) do not deny this; they just don't proclaim this. They are SILENT. Thus, they have nothing to prove. TWO affirm it. They have something to prove.

Ok, I've seen this in just about every one of your posts, Josiah, and I will clear up your misquoting of what I said. You originally said there were 50,000 denominations out there, out of which 2 believed in the ever-virginity of Mary. I told you that in decades or years from now, there could be 100,000 denominations (Protestant) because of the constant splitting, splintering, etc. Didn't say that was the case now. So please stop saying this. If you need proof of what I said and don't believe me, I'd be happy to find my original post and post it for you. Otherwise, please correct the misquoting. Thank you.

 

[Standing Up]

This arguement has been going on for 5 years on CF!!!

10th August 2004, 12:04 AM

2000 years. I'm still not sure why anyone cares particularly?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

2000 years. I'm still not sure why anyone cares particularly?

Those that believe in it care about it, and evidently so do you, as you are posting here

 

[MamaZ]

Lesson Five of Online Greek Course

In the above verse, the context indicates that the continuous state is limited by the ending of the situation.
In the verse from Romans (cited by CJ) the context exhibits that the condition ends at death (noted in the verses which summarize what Paul has said).

At the time Luke 1:34 is stated by Mary, Mary is betrothed which is typically followed by marriage. Mary begins her statement with the future tense (shall) which covers her present condition and the future (shall). There is no other limiting in the context of the passage/s. The only context provided for her statement is "shall". Thus, the duration of the condition described by the present tense in this statement is the future; the "knowing not a man" is for the present and future. The condition is continuous.

No it is not. It is speaking of the here and now as when the Angel approached her.. Says nothing to the effect that she will remain an virgin. When the Angel aproached her and told her that she would bear a son this was quite confusing to her for she had not known any man and did not until the birth of Jesus.

 

[MamaZ]

The birth of other children to Mary is a gift from God. For children are an inheritance from the Lord. uncles and cousins have a different greek word for them. This is why brothers and sisters were named. Not cousins and uncles

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


Thekla,

The discussion here is PERPETUALITY. The topic here is that Mary had no ____ EVER.

The point was made that Luke 1:34 teaches the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary (the topic). While the original poster making that claim has appeared to have abandoned that, YOU took it up, and continued that point with me and others.

Are you now admitting that the point you've been defending for all these pages simply isn't the case?


Friend, it seems odd for someone to go to a thread entitled "Obama's Health Care Proposal" post on and on and on. Then say, "Wait a minute. In all my discussions with you, all the exchanges, I realize you were talking about Obama and health care, but I wasn't." Look at the title of this thread. THAT is the subject here (you might want to take special notice of the first word in the title). The point was made that Luke 1:34 proves that. YOU took up that mantal - arguing that the grammar proves that. NOW..... If you're point isn't that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin, why are you posting here? Why did you entirely ignore all my posts to you in reply - all about the topic of this thread? If you are reversing yourself on Luke 1:34, that's okay. But I'm now at a loss: What were you talking about if not the subject of this thread? Why were you defending the point made that Luke 1:34 mandates the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary if you aren't defending that Luke 1:34 mandates the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary????

I spent a lot of time on this. I did a lot of research on my own, apart from our exchanges - actually TRYING to find some support for your position since you refused to. NOW you are telling all of us, "I was off topic the whole time?" NOW you are telling us "I wasn't replying to your posts about that, I was talking about something different?"

And, I reviewed things. I often reminded you of the issue. You cannot say, "Oh, I forgot" or "Sorry, I didn't understand what the discussion here is about." "I didn't know the context." I reminded you often. If you disagreed, you have numerous times to say that. You didn't. Until AFTER you revealed your grammar source that undermined your point.




Here's the bottom line:

1. The discussion has been about the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary. REad the first word of the title of this thread. THAT is the ONLY issue Ive been discussing, THAT is the issue you and I have been discussion in our exchange - AS YOU KNOW.

2. The point was made taht Luke 1:34 proves that. YOU entered our discussion at that point, to take up the mantal of our Orthodox friend on that.

3. Your point for a very long time, a lot of forceful posts, is that the GRAMMAR proves the point. WHAT point? The sole point of our discussion: the PERPETUALITY of Mary's virginity.



So, what were you doing? How can you now seem to admit: "I was ignoring the subject matter, the issue of your posts, and the issue I took up to defend?" What were you doing?







.

 

[Dorothea]

Irrelevant as the EV is something that was and is believed by the Church when the Church was one and it is something that was believed by the reformers themselves.

What occurred two hundred years ago that replaced what everyone believed? Did God hide something from even the reformers? Who were these men that decided that the EV was wrong? Did they have the gift of prophecy from the Holy Spirit? Did the Holy Spirit give these men an insight into Scripture that wasn't there before?

The burden of proof is on your court as the EV has always been part of the Church.

Human pride got in the way with interpreting on their own with ignorance of what was first taught and defended, and then it was easy for the enemy to lead them away from this tradition through their pride and ignorance.

 

[Standing Up]

We know when the conception occurred retrospectively (because we are told this). There is no mention of when the future event will occur. Gabriel does not reveal when in the future this would occur.

You're talking about two different things here, right? Conception and no-longer a virgin, right?

I doubt Gabriel had the latter thoughts in mind at all, do you?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ withdraws from thread and will just lurk awhile