Speak lovingly of Mary

Thekla · Oct 17, 2008

[QUOTE"you're going to have a kid."
"pardon? I'm a virgin."

the angel didn't give a timeline.[/QUOTE]

His announcement was in the future tense ie a pregnancy to take place in the
future

narnia59 · Oct 17, 2008

Uphill Battle said:
no, you might respond "maybe."

or you might respond "what business is it of yours?"

you wouldn't say "yeah, I know."

when I say the angel didn't give a timeline, that means that there was no prophetic "you will do this sometime in the future."

you're going to conceive and have a kid.

Mary's answer is exactly as it should be.

Tha angels words were not prophetic in nature?

Rather than your examples, maybe from Mary -- "Joseph and I are going to have a child?" would be more realistic response. Certainly not -- how is that going to happen since I'm a virgin if she's just around the corner from getting married and starting a family.

Mary's answer is exactly as it should be for someone who plans on being a perpetual virgin. Not somebody who's planning to have children in the near future.

Uphill Battle · Oct 17, 2008

narnia59 said:
No I don't. You have no basis for that statement at all.

sure I do.

the basis of Catholic teaching is that the Catholic church has the answers. It doesn't matter if it has any backing beyond it's own assertions or traditions, it's "true." therefore, you have beliefs that are based on "because we say so."

Thekla said:
[QUOTE"you're going to have a kid."
"pardon? I'm a virgin."

the angel didn't give a timeline.

His announcement was in the future tense ie a pregnancy to take place in the
future[/quote]
I've already explained as much as I'm going to. beating our heads against the wall further is stupid, and painful.

Thekla · Oct 17, 2008

[QUOTEwhen I say the angel didn't give a timeline, that means that there was no prophetic "you will do this sometime in the future."

you're going to conceive and have a kid.

Mary's answer is exactly as it should be.[/QUOTE]

this "reading" belies your tradition

narnia59 · Oct 17, 2008

MamaZ said:
Of course she was unique.. She gave birth to Christ.

MamaZ, I actually think that statement is a step forward for you.

Thekla · Oct 17, 2008

I've already explained as much as I'm going to. beating our heads against the wall further is stupid, and painful.

ok.

Uphill Battle · Oct 17, 2008

narnia59 said:
Tha angels words were not prophetic in nature?

that is not what I meant. It doesn't have the halmarks of "sometime in the future." much like you find in the prophecies in daniel... a time and half a time, etc...

It's far more immediate than that.

Rather than your examples, maybe from Mary -- "Joseph and I are going to have a child?" would be more realistic response. Certainly not -- how is that going to happen since I'm a virgin if she's just around the corner from getting married and starting a family.

Mary's answer is exactly as it should be for someone who plans on being a perpetual virgin. Not somebody who's planning to have children in the near future.

despite her upcoming marriage.

she makes no mention of an intention to remain perpetually a virgin. none. That is a pipe dream.

I guess it's easier to see it your way when you already have that belief laid out for you in the first place.

Uphill Battle · Oct 17, 2008

Thekla said:
[QUOTEwhen I say the angel didn't give a timeline, that means that there was no prophetic "you will do this sometime in the future."

you're going to conceive and have a kid.

Mary's answer is exactly as it should be.

this "reading" belies your tradition[/quote]
what traditon? reading the text and thinking for myself?

if you want to call that "tradition" alright.

Thekla · Oct 17, 2008

Uphill,

As irritating as it might be, Gabriel speaks of a future pregnancy. Mary is betrothed. If the marriage will be "ordinary", a future pregnancy is to be expected.

Uphill Battle · Oct 17, 2008

and you of course, assume that the only logical response would be "oh, yeah, I know... Joseph and I were planning on having oodles of kids."

Angel says, you will conceive and have a child.

Mary says, how? I'm a virgin?

It's clear that she understood the immediate nature of the statement. and the immediate effect, as well.

narnia59 · Oct 18, 2008

Uphill Battle said:
sure I do.

the basis of Catholic teaching is that the Catholic church has the answers. It doesn't matter if it has any backing beyond it's own assertions or traditions, it's "true." therefore, you have beliefs that are based on "because we say so."

The basis of Catholic teaching is that Christ established a visible church -- he breathed his life into it, promised the gates of hell would not prevail against it, established clear leadership who understood they were accountable for the souls of others, they clearly showed a progression of teaching to other qualified members to take on this leadership role, they clearly believed the church was the pillar and foundation of the truth and the way God would manifest his truth to the nations, and that those they were charged with leading should submit to the authority of their leaders -- all solidly backed up in the writings they left, also known as Sacred Scripture.

They never once mentioned that 'oh by the way, we're writing this stuff down because once we're gone, it's all you've got to go by'. Yet you have those who base their beliefs on exactly that tradition and then their own assertions of what those writings mean, assert that they have the answers, all because they say so. And they are more accountable how?

And don't you think if what Jesus intended to leave as the sole authority was scripture, he might have put his focus on writing his teachings instead of teaching them to somebody else to write down?

Thekla · Oct 18, 2008

Uphill Battle said:
and you of course, assume that the only logical response would be "oh, yeah, I know... Joseph and I were planning on having oodles of kids."

Angel says, you will conceive and have a child.

Mary says, how? I'm a virgin?

It's clear that she understood the immediate nature of the statement. and the immediate effect, as well.

where does she indicate that understanding ?

Consider: our knowledge of the "timeline" is retrospective; the entirety is recorded, and we understand Mary and Gabriel's interaction in the light of the completed events. For ex., Mary - pregnant - visits Elizabeth 3 months before John the Baptist is born, stays 3 months, and returns. Another words, your understanding inserts the knowledge of completed events to arrive at this conclusion. Mary, however, responds to the events as they are announced and "unfolding". At the time Gabriel visits, her present is betrothal, her future is marriage. If one discards retrospective knowledge, Mary's answer applies to the future as she knows it at the time of the announcement, and as a response to Gabriel's prophetic statement about the same future.

Philothei · Oct 18, 2008

CaliforniaJosiah said:
[/color]

Ah, then to you it doesn't matter WHAT is said about Her. Okay. Obviously you disagree with the RCC that says it's HERESY to deny that Mary Had No Sex Ever, and it's fine with you that people tell the most horrible of offensive lies about your mother, your spouse, and yes above all Our Lady - because "she's protected." Okay. Gotcha.

You are continuing to prove the point of my post (if you read it).

.

I did not say that... You said you want to protect her....and I answered ...that She needs no "protection" from you... Twisting my words to prove your point has no value as others who read know exactly what I meant... Your "opinion" about her can be one or another or sitting on the fence... I have no idea that sitting on the fence actually "protects" Theotokos... I do not see that either in the Bible...

MamaZ · Oct 18, 2008

His announcement was in the future tense ie a pregnancy to take place in the
future

And the future could have been one minute after the Angel spoke..Then it would be around 9 months before the Child was born.. But it was in the time of their betrothel so therefore she was at that time a virgin.. She was until Christ was born.. Mary's firstborn son..

MamaZ · Oct 18, 2008

all Christians are unique.. For all Christians carry Christ not in the flesh but in the Spirit..

LittleLambofJesus · Oct 18, 2008

MamaZ said:
all Christians are unique.. For all Christians carry Christ not in the flesh but in the Spirit..

Go Tyndale!

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7298632

2 Corin 3:3 That being made manifest ye a letter of Christ, being dispensed thru us, having been written not to ink but to spirit of God living. Not in tablets of stone, but in tablets of heart fleshly

2 Corin 5:16 So-that we, from the now, no-one have known/oidamen <1492> (5758) according-to flesh, if yet even we have known/egnwkamen <1097> (5758) according to flesh, Christ, but now not still we are knowing/ginwskomen <1097> (5719)

Thekla · Oct 18, 2008

MamaZ said:
And the future could have been one minute after the Angel spoke..Then it would be around 9 months before the Child was born.. But it was in the time of their betrothel so therefore she was at that time a virgin.. She was until Christ was born.. Mary's firstborn son..

Do we find explicitly stated in Gabriel's message when she would conceive; in five seconds, or five days, or five years ? Gabriel says only shall; he does not say when "shall" will be.

To Mary, what we read as "history" was not history, but a real unfolding of events as they were happening. Gabriel does not tell her when. She was already betrothed; the "shall" conceive is expected in an ordinary marriage. What leap of faith, what self-sacrifice is required to expect to conceive children in the ordinary marriage ?

Those of the OT, and those of the NT called by God have always exhibited a "leap of faith". The "leap of faith" is not faith, is no "leap" where there is no self-sacrifice. Abram "went out from his people", he left all including any plans, he left security, to pursue relationship with God. Noah built an ark, a leap of faith, despite the effort (and opinions of others). Do we think that, for the mother of Christ, there is no leap of faith, no sacrifice asked from God ?

When Gabriel spoke to Mary, there is no indication she knew when "shall conceive" would be. She was betrothed, and marriage follows betrothal. Her response, "I do not know a man" includes the entire span of "shall" that was not limited by Gabriel's statement, for he does not say when.

Uphill Battle · Oct 18, 2008

I'm sorry, but that's just constructing a "It must be sometime in the far future in her mind" kind of argument.

the usage of Shall is not a necessary future statement.

it means also, you shall, as in an order (you shall leave now) IOW, you WILL. which, frankly, fits the passage a great deal better.

it means also, to have to, or must.

you, of course, are only interested in the meaning that props up your unbiblical premise.

Thekla · Oct 18, 2008

Uphill Battle said:
I'm sorry, but that's just constructing a "It must be sometime in the far future in her mind" kind of argument.

the usage of Shall is not a necessary future statement.

it means also, you shall, as in an order (you shall leave now) IOW, you WILL. which, frankly, fits the passage a great deal better.

it means also, to have to, or must.

you, of course, are only interested in the meaning that props up your unbiblical premise.

1. absent of any indication of when "shall be" will be, the time span precisely can and does include the far as well as immediate future and everything in between. It is a fully open proposition.

2. Nor is it necessarily immediate. If we treat "shall" as a command, there is no room for assent on Mary's part, and we are left with predestination. Certainly, the Incarnation is the will of God, and in that sense is a "command" event. Yet Mary gives assent (as do Abram, Noah, Moses, Sarah, etc).

3. As above; the use of "shall" in the 10 Commandements does not force the "will" (pun intended) of the person; there is abundant evidence of that.

Thekla · Oct 18, 2008

Uphill Battle said:
I'm sorry, but that's just constructing a "It must be sometime in the far future in her mind" kind of argument.

the usage of Shall is not a necessary future statement.

it means also, you shall, as in an order (you shall leave now) IOW, you WILL. which, frankly, fits the passage a great deal better.

it means also, to have to, or must.

you, of course, are only interested in the meaning that props up your unbiblical premise.

to continue:

Treating "shall" as a command statement and/or indicative of a future condition of pregnancy further supports Mary's response as a statement of a vow of chastity. Again, the expectation of ordinary marriage is that at some time a child will be conceived. There is no mention of Mary being barren or past the age of child-bearing; a future conception is a common expectation of marriage. To say in response to "will be", "how can that be" is -again- indicative (in a young, betrothed woman) of an unusual circumstance.

Speak lovingly of Mary

Thekla

Guest

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Regular Member

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Thekla

Guest

Love never fails

MamaZ

Guest

MamaZ

Guest

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Thekla

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency