Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[Thekla]

.


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?







.

There is no need to say anything, as you persistently re represent what I say in your "own image"

I need to leave.
I'll read this later and see if I need to add it to my collection of post #s, or if perhaps you are at last ready to engage in honest discussion

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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)

Thank you for the correction. Your point is there COULD be 100000 denominations years from now, not that there now is. Sorry.

But I fail to see how it makes a difference to my point whether there are 49,998 or 99,998 denominations that have no position and thus have no need to support their position. It STILL means that there are TWO that DO have a position and thus DO have a position they must support. Do you see my point? IMHO, whether it's 49.998 who do not or 98,998 who do not really doesn't change my point.


Back to the issue at hand: the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary, that Mary had no _____ EVER.



Thank you.

Pax

- Josiah



.

 

[Dorothea]

Thank you for the correction. Your point is there COULD be 100000 denominations years from now, not that there now is. Sorry.

But I fail to see how it makes a difference to my point whether there are 49,998 or 99,998 denominations that have no position and thus have no need to support their position. It STILL means that there are TWO that DO have a position and thus DO have a position they must support. Do you see my point? IMHO, whether it's 49.998 who do not or 98,998 who do not really doesn't change my point.


Back to the issue at hand: the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary, that Mary had no _____ EVER.



Thank you.

Pax

- Josiah



.

And btw, Orthodoxy is not a denomination. Ok, back to the broken record......

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Dorothea 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)

Even more than 1 is 1 too many

 

[Dorothea]

Even more than 1 is 1 too many

Yes, well...what can you do?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


Dorothea,


Okay. Guess the Luke 1:34 point is being abandoned. Alright.

Since now your position is that it's dogmatic fact because it's always been taught, would you please quote from 5 people (they can be anyone you choose - heretics if you like) who write in the first century and who specifically state that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin? Since you know it was taught then, just copy and paste to here just 5 of them who did. If you would, please, reference each of the quotes (including the date so as to verify First Century). Thanks.

Now, just to clarify, this thread is not about Jesus or siblings, the issue is singular: Mary and PERPETUAL virginity, that she had no _____ EVER, so the only part of the quote you really need to supply is where they state that. And I don't want you to verify that all taught it (that would be an inpractical assignment) just 5.


I'm eager to discuss this apologetic with you, but we first need to verify that it's true. I'm making it as easy as possible for you to do so, agreeing that just 5 (not everyone) and only first century (not from the beginning or always); I'll regard your point verified with just 5 (I'll wave their credibility) from anywhere in the First Century. But you must verify your point before we can discuss it's value as an apologetic (this is what our friend and sister Thekla failed to do - we never got to the evaluation of it since it was never verified as true). Just post the relevant parts of the quotes (referenced with dates) here, I'll thus accept the validity of the point, and we can then move on to evaluating the apologetic.



Thanks!


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[student ad x]

MOD HAT ON

Well folks, this thread is now closed for a cool down period while staff reviews multiple reported posts this thread has generated. Thank you for your patience.

MOD HAT OFF
​

 

[student ad x]

MOD HAT ON

The reported posts have been reviewed by staff. The thread is now re-opened...... Carry on

MOD HAT OFF
​

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Wow! That might be a record for the shortest time a thread was closed then reopened?

 

[student ad x]

There will be times in the future when we will not be this fast.... but the effort is being made

 

[Thekla]

.


Dorothea,


Okay. Guess the Luke 1:34 point is being abandoned. Alright.


.

No; I was unable to remain computer-side as I had errands to complete.

But it seems useless to continue as the concept is perhaps too difficult. Maybe this is a disjoint between English and H. Greek. The conceptual range of the languages is different.

I do still maintain what I said. I can quote it, but it didn't make sense to you previously and there's no reason to think it would so now. If you have any specific questions, I would willing to answer them. I only ask that, should you wish to do so, questions should be asked and answers received in the spirit of honesty, respect, and true interest. If a discussion is truly desired this will already be the guiding principle.

 

[Thekla]

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.

Gabriel is speaking to her in "real time" (Mary's experience of time), but he is quite clear. The conception he announces will be in the future. Mary understands; she repeats the understanding that the conception will occur in the future by using the verb "shall" (future tense).

There is no indication from Gabriel stating when the conception will occur. It took decades for Isaac to be conceived; throughout the OT the time between announcement and fruition varies. There is no precedent for determining when the announced event will happen unless the time itself is announced.

 

[Standing Up]

Gabriel is speaking to her in "real time" (Mary's experience of time), but he is quite clear. The conception he announces will be in the future. Mary understands; she repeats the understanding that the conception will occur in the future by using the verb "shall" (future tense).

There is no indication from Gabriel stating when the conception will occur. It took decades for Isaac to be conceived; throughout the OT the time between announcement and fruition varies. There is no precedent for determining when the announced event will happen unless the time itself is announced.

What does all that mean? Gabriel said will conceive. Okay. She did conceive, probably when/as she agreed to it.

What does that mean to her future virginity, if anything? He was talking about the singular virgin birth.

 

[Thekla]

What does all that mean? Gabriel said will conceive. Okay. She did conceive, probably when/as she agreed to it.

What does that mean to her future virginity, if anything? He was talking about the singular virgin birth.

At the risk of being repetitious, her response to Gabriel was to question how she could conceive in the future. As she was presently betrothed, and marriage usually follows betrothal, her question of 'how could this happen in the future' is instructive. Her reason for asking how she could conceive in the future is given as "I know not a man". In Greek, grammatically, this means an ongoing condition (not knowing a man). She does not limit the ongoing condition by any further statement (nor is any such limit given at all in scripture).

 

[Standing Up]

At the risk of being repetitious, her response to Gabriel was to question how she could conceive in the future. As she was presently betrothed, and marriage usually follows betrothal, her question of 'how could this happen in the future' is instructive. Her reason for asking how she could conceive in the future is given as "I know not a man". In Greek, grammatically, this means an ongoing condition (not knowing a man). She does not limit the ongoing condition by any further statement (nor is any such limit given at all in scripture).

Okay. We can understand why she would think that. She says, how will I conceive tomorrow, since I am today a virgin. Right? And the implication then is this between ****

How will I conceive tomorrow, 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.****

Right?

 

[Thekla]

Okay. We can understand why she would think that. She says, how will I conceive tomorrow, since I am today a virgin. Right? And the implication then is this between ****

Yes; that's a good summary.
Further, Gabriel doesn't say tomorrow, he just announces "shall".
Tomorrow is part of the future but it is just as much a part of the future as ten years, or two weeks, or eleven months or one minute.

How will I conceive tomorrow, 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.****

Right?

Or how will I conceive in ten years (remember the length of time before the conception of Isaac).

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

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

No; I was unable to remain computer-side as I had errands to complete.

But it seems useless to continue as the concept is perhaps too difficult. Maybe this is a disjoint between English and H. Greek. The conceptual range of the languages is different.

1. Your foundational argument was that the koine Greek grammar MANDATED that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin.

2. Then you stated you never claimed anything about PERPETUAL (what you were talking about in a thread about the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary and in a discussion with me exclusively about the issue of PERPETUALITY is thus a mystery left unanswered).

3. I frequently asked you for some confirmation form some koine Greek grammar that states that the present active indictative MANDATES perpetuality and finally you did - only it states that it ONLY suggests the reality continuing IN THE PRESENT, it said NOTHING to the issue whatsoever, NOTHING to support your point.

4. Switching gears, you stated then that actually the GRAMMAR doesn't mandate it, but the CONTEXT mandates perpetuality. But again you entirely failed to find any textual context for that. "Shall" means future, not perpetuality. This you eventually admitted. The future included one minute or one hour from then (thus Tradition could be correct and the Annunication and the Incarnation happened ON THE SAME DAY - March 25), the "shall" does not MANDATE "until death/undeath - perpetually." thus you seem to have admitted your point baseless. You finally admitted that any future implied here is indefinate - thus your point lost, it does NOT mandate perpetuality (the SOLE issue of the discussion). Let's switch the whole issue to future (not present tense) as if Mary used a FUTURE tense verb. "I shall buy a car." That does NOT indicate that I will buy a car every day for the rest of my life; I will die buying a car. You are actually confusing the present active indicative with an entirely different verb - one Mary did not use. So you wanted to impose a "context" from outside the text - your theories about what Mary MIGHT have been thinking insisting THAT is the "context" but it's only your view imposed upon the text and then you noting that you agree with yourself, this is not the TEXT'S context, it's just your view imposed upon it.

5. Look, I agree the sentance is not altogether clear (HARDLY reason to use it as the substantiation for a statement of highest importance!!!!!!!). We are left a bit wondering what Mary was thinking at this point (not too surprising since it seems as though Mary is confused at this point). But there is NOTHING here MANDATING that She was a PEPRETUAL virgin and that is the sole, only, exclusive issue before us - the ONLY think I'm talking about and the issue of this thread and the point you entered conversation with me to prove: PERPETUALITY.

6. Now is YOUR "interpretation" of the verse POSSIBLE textually? Probably. Is my speculation about it POSSIBLE? Absolutely. Is either MANDATED by the text. Nope. This verse could be used to confirm only one thing: Mary was a virgin at the second when Mary spoke these words - at the Annunciation. And that pretty much all 50000 denominations agree on. But this thread has NOTHING to do with that. It's exclusively about the dogma of the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary, the proof that She was a virgin 52 years LATER, that She DIED a virgin.

You simply failed to substantiate your point that the grammar of this verse confirms that Mary died a virgin.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah



.

 

[Thekla]

A respectful accurate discussion is welcome.

Without honesty and respect, no discussion is possible (it is non-discussion).

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

Persistently misrepresenting what I stated is neither honest nor respectful.

I am interested in discussion; I am not interested in non-discussion.

 

[Maasai1]

I still do not believe the theory of perpetual virginity, but more interesting, where did the idea of the assescion of mary come from? why didn't apostle john write about such a great event in the revelation book?

 

[Standing Up]

Okay. We can understand why she would think that. She says, how will I conceive tomorrow, since I am today a virgin. Right? And the implication then is this between ****

How will I conceive tomorrow, 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.****

Right?

Yes; that's a good summary.
Further, Gabriel doesn't say tomorrow, he just announces "shall".
Tomorrow is part of the future but it is just as much a part of the future as ten years, or two weeks, or eleven months or one minute.


Or how will I conceive in ten years (remember the length of time before the conception of Isaac).

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

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.