T
Thekla
Guest
Just to add (per the typology issue as well) the OT is replete with reports of "personal issues" of the lives of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs.
Upvote
0
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.
Actually she spoke what was true.. She was at that time not knowing any man.. She was a virgin.1.Mary iterated an ongoing condition of virginity; you are ignoring her witness to Gabriel.
What you are saying would make perfect sense IF the angel had told Mary she had already conceived. Her response of how can this be, I am a virgin (meaning I have not yet known a man) would be quite logical.Actually she spoke what was true.. She was at that time not knowing any man.. She was a virgin.And Joseph kept her a virgin until the birth of Christ.. It really is quite simple to read in the scriptures.
Hi Thekla. Yeah the Koine greek is tough. I always put the greek texts up with verses so as to be able to study on it better [usually the transliterated greek].
Would this be the correct tenses for this word in these verses?
Here he just appears to be acknowledging what mary said in Luke 1:34
Matt 1:25 And not he knew her untill of which she brought forth the son of her the firstborn and he calls the name of Him Jesus
Textus Rec.) Matthew 1:25 kai ouk eginwsken authn ewV ou eteken ton uion authV ton prwtotokon kai ekalesen to onoma autou ihsoun
Here it implies she is not "knowing". Does that me sexual relations?
Luke 1:34 Said yet mariam toward the messenger how shall be this since a man not I am knowing.
Textus Rec.) Luke 1:34 eipen de mariam proV ton aggelon pwV estai touto epei andra ou ginwskw
That is ok by meI guess depending on the Greek text used,
not know and not knowing are both possible.
Here again, in the Luke passage, Gabriel speaks of a future pregnancy.
Mary confirms this (future) "shall" ( shall is proper for will in the first person - singular and plural) and says "not know a man".
How silly is this..LOLWhat you are saying would make perfect sense IF the angel had told Mary she had already conceived. Her response of how can this be, I am a virgin (meaning I have not yet known a man) would be quite logical.
However, since the angel told her she would conceive in the future, Mary's response only makes sense if Mary believed that in the future, she would still be a virgin. Asking, 'how can this be' -- how can I conceive in the future -- makes no sense at all unless Mary planned on being a virgin in the future as well. If as you believe, she and Joseph were planning on having a bunch of kids, her assumption would certainly have been the angel was speaking of the child she and Joseph would conceive. She wouldn't have had to question how this conception was going to occur at all.
Well, now that's an intelligent and thought-provoking response. Struggling a little? Perhaps you should remove your thinking from your 21st century, 'sex is the main thing' mindset, and things will be clearer.How silly is this..LOL
And you know this how, outside of your own personal views and tradition?Number one Mary would not even have been betrothed if she was planning on being a PV..But she was.. And they did Marry.. But she was already with child before they were married.. So this shows the time span..
Number one Mary would not even have been betrothed if she was planning on being a PV..But she was.. And they did Marry.. But she was already with child before they were married.. So this shows the time span..
Exactly..... Bingo...The angel tells her she will conceive a child in the future. You say she was betrothed to a man she was planning in the near future to 'know'. If that is the case, she would have logically assumed the angel was speaking about conceiving a child with the man she was about to 'know'. The fact that she is currently a virgin has no implication at all to the conversation as you interpret it, so why was that her response?
Number one Mary would not even have been betrothed if she was planning on being a PV..But she was.. And they did Marry.. But she was already with child before they were married.. So this shows the time span..
I have never sneered at the LDS, so please stop making such accusations.
Since you and CJ seem so adamant about bringing them and 'similarities' into the discussion however, let's remember your own views which are consistent to theirs the Holy Spirit failed to keep the gates of hell from prevailing against the church, it fell into apostasy, and you are now the reformed, restored, however you want to say it church Jesus established, whether you believe it is visible or invisible, and with the absolutely infallible understanding of what is authoritative revelation.
I have never requested that you accept my traditions. I've simply asked that CJ quits inserting his own traditions into mine, and then saying mine are in conflict. Which to this point, he seems unwilling to do.
But I would have to ask does it really make it okay to say things you have said are unloving and hurtful towards Mary simply because one thinks they are true based upon their own standard of what defines truth?
No substantiation has been offered according to your standard, but the doctrine is not yours.
IF the Catholics have learned ANYTHING of the Protestant perspective here from my posts, then maybe SOMETHING has been accomplished and it has not all be an entire waste of time.
You truly believe that she needs "our defend and support"? It is rather we who need her... Oh... about protection....too you got it the other way around...But I will NOT give up loving, protecting and defending My Mother
Josiah said:Agreed, but She is my Mother....
Let's say many others were stating as the highest level of importance and certainty that your mother is a a murderer, and to deny such is to suggest that your salvation is thereby in question. Now, it would not be YOUR dogma or doctrine or even your view at all!!! But might you CARE that this is be said about your mother? Well, we're talking about something FAR more personal, intimate and private than that and we're not talking about your mother, we're talking about Our Lady, the Mother of God.
Once again, after 200 pages, I did NOT bring up the issue of whether speech is distinctively, above all LOVING toward Our Lady. A Catholic Staffer did - WarriorAngel. Silly to rebuke ME for asking if this obsession over Her frequency of sex after Jesus is born is LOVING or not - I didn't raise the question, a Catholic did.
I never remotely stated that Mary did or did not have sex. Ever. With anyone. The Catholic Church did. As dogma - the highest level of importance and certainty, critical, to deny such is to be a heretic. Silly to rebuke me for asking about her sex life when I never raised the issue, the Catholic Church did.
I did not state that it is essential that a report about a person must be substantiated or the spreading of it is a SIN (and the question I asked, is sinning against someone distictively LOVING toward them?), the Catholic Church made this point. Silly to rebuke me for the point that the Catholic Church makes.
I have pointed out that IF we were discussing how many angels fit on the head of a pin, whether Aristotle's theory of accidents is dogma, or whether the Shroud of Turin is the actual shroud of Jesus, frankly, I would have exited this thread a LONG time ago, just like the one who started this - and then quickly left it. BUT IT'S MY MOTHER YOU'RE TALKING about: AS DOGMA, AND THE TOPIC OF THIS DOGMA IS HOW OFTEN SHE HAD SEX. If (and I honestly think I MUST be kinda wierd here) you care what is said about your earthly mother, I just felt (but no longer do) it SHOULD matter what is said about our spiritual, heavenly Mother. It matters to me. NOT ONLY because Her Son stated that we will be held eternally responsible for what we say about people, but MUCH MORE SO because I love, adore, revere, honor, respect and hold Our Lady in highest esteem. As the death of Her Son pierced Her sacred heart, I grieve that obessions and stories and insistences today may do the same. And yes, that grieves me.
You are willing to accept it as sufficient substantiation and authorization that those spreading the story say it's true. Ironically, this is a rubric you consistent reject and yet you are defending it above all else. Okay. Defending that seems of utmost importance to you. The sacred heart of Our Lady is more important to me.
IF this issue of Mary's hymen at Her death is true and She is honored and revered and above all regards the spreading of such among all the peoples as above all LOVING toward Her, then God bless you - mightily. And if my silence is hurtful to Her, I beg Her forgiveness. IF this is, in fact, either a falsehood or simply an issue Mary is not pleased has been made such an obession and the highest level of importance among Catholics and is the source of much pain for Her and Her Son, THIS I KNOW from the bottom of my heart: She knows you meant no harm and She KNOWS that you sincerely love her (my years in Catholicism steadfastly convinced me of that), and I believe she forgives you. As does Her Son. You are repeated what your denomination told you and accepting it "with docility" as it demands, and they know that. More importantly, they know the sincerity of your heart.
IF the Catholics have learned ANYTHING of the Protestant perspective here from my posts, then maybe SOMETHING has been accomplished and it has not all be an entire waste of time. I did learn a few aspects of the implications and spirituality of such in the EO that were enriching to me. Perhaps the Catholics will take this away: I have no obsessive, insistent DOGMA on her hymen at Her death NOT because I hate her but because I LOVE her. In my heart, TRUTH and RESPECT matter for the ones we love. To ME, the heart of Mary matters more than the defense of the power of my denomination. I love Mary more than the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, her reputation matters more to me than its.
I'm OBVIOUSLY not going to get any of my questions answered, not after 200 + pages. The deep concern I've had since I was a young teen will continue; griving that Our Lady might be hurt by all this. I need to "bow out" and realize some MUST agree with what their denomination says and CANNOT discuss that, and I do know that. I do NOT question your heart. I do NOT call you heretic or even wrong, that's all been leveled at me.
I'm giving up, for this day and thread anyway. But I will NOT give up loving, protecting and defending My Mother! Not as long as their is breath in my heart, soul and body.
Thank you for allowing me to post, anyway.
Pax
- Josiah
.
I thought you were convinced either for PV or against...it...Now you are "taking the Protestant" perspective???? wow... moving guideposts all around here . ....huh??
Josiah said:Agreed, but She is my Mother....
Let's say many others were stating as the highest level of importance and certainty that your mother is a a murderer, and to deny such is to suggest that your salvation is thereby in question. Now, it would not be YOUR dogma or doctrine or even your view at all!!! But might you CARE that this is be said about your mother? Well, we're talking about something FAR more personal, intimate and private than that and we're not talking about your mother, we're talking about Our Lady, the Mother of God.
Once again, after 200 pages, I did NOT bring up the issue of whether speech is distinctively, above all LOVING toward Our Lady. A Catholic Staffer did - WarriorAngel. Silly to rebuke ME for asking if this obsession over Her frequency of sex after Jesus is born is LOVING or not - I didn't raise the question, a Catholic did.
I never remotely stated that Mary did or did not have sex. Ever. With anyone. The Catholic Church did. As dogma - the highest level of importance and certainty, critical, to deny such is to be a heretic. Silly to rebuke me for asking about her sex life when I never raised the issue, the Catholic Church did.
I did not state that it is essential that a report about a person must be substantiated or the spreading of it is a SIN (and the question I asked, is sinning against someone distictively LOVING toward them?), the Catholic Church made this point. Silly to rebuke me for the point that the Catholic Church makes.
I have pointed out that IF we were discussing how many angels fit on the head of a pin, whether Aristotle's theory of accidents is dogma, or whether the Shroud of Turin is the actual shroud of Jesus, frankly, I would have exited this thread a LONG time ago, just like the one who started this - and then quickly left it. BUT IT'S MY MOTHER YOU'RE TALKING about: AS DOGMA, AND THE TOPIC OF THIS DOGMA IS HOW OFTEN SHE HAD SEX. If (and I honestly think I MUST be kinda wierd here) you care what is said about your earthly mother, I just felt (but no longer do) it SHOULD matter what is said about our spiritual, heavenly Mother. It matters to me. NOT ONLY because Her Son stated that we will be held eternally responsible for what we say about people, but MUCH MORE SO because I love, adore, revere, honor, respect and hold Our Lady in highest esteem. As the death of Her Son pierced Her sacred heart, I grieve that obessions and stories and insistences today may do the same. And yes, that grieves me.
You are willing to accept it as sufficient substantiation and authorization that those spreading the story say it's true. Ironically, this is a rubric you consistent reject and yet you are defending it above all else. Okay. Defending that seems of utmost importance to you. The sacred heart of Our Lady is more important to me.
IF this issue of Mary's hymen at Her death is true and She is honored and revered and above all regards the spreading of such among all the peoples as above all LOVING toward Her, then God bless you - mightily. And if my silence is hurtful to Her, I beg Her forgiveness. IF this is, in fact, either a falsehood or simply an issue Mary is not pleased has been made such an obession and the highest level of importance among Catholics and is the source of much pain for Her and Her Son, THIS I KNOW from the bottom of my heart: She knows you meant no harm and She KNOWS that you sincerely love her (my years in Catholicism steadfastly convinced me of that), and I believe she forgives you. As does Her Son. You are repeated what your denomination told you and accepting it "with docility" as it demands, and they know that. More importantly, they know the sincerity of your heart.
IF the Catholics have learned ANYTHING of the Protestant perspective here from my posts, then maybe SOMETHING has been accomplished and it has not all be an entire waste of time. I did learn a few aspects of the implications and spirituality of such in the EO that were enriching to me. Perhaps the Catholics will take this away: I have no obsessive, insistent DOGMA on her hymen at Her death NOT because I hate her but because I LOVE her. In my heart, TRUTH and RESPECT matter for the ones we love. To ME, the heart of Mary matters more than the defense of the power of my denomination. I love Mary more than the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, her reputation matters more to me than its.
I'm OBVIOUSLY not going to get any of my questions answered, not after 200 + pages. The deep concern I've had since I was a young teen will continue; griving that Our Lady might be hurt by all this. I need to "bow out" and realize some MUST agree with what their denomination says and CANNOT discuss that, and I do know that. I do NOT question your heart. I do NOT call you heretic or even wrong, that's all been leveled at me.
I'm giving up, for this day and thread anyway. But I will NOT give up loving, protecting and defending My Mother! Not as long as their is breath in my heart, soul and body.
Thank you for allowing me to post, anyway.
Pax
- Josiah
.
I thought you were convinced either for PV or against...it...Now you are "taking the Protestant" perspective???? wow... moving guideposts all around here . ....huh??
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?