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.
Now, how does that substantiate dogma that Mary had no sex ever?
.
(have you read the previous posts yet ?)
before continuing here in your redefinition of parthenos
parthenos means pure (your meaning is a subcategory of the overarching meaning)Here's the definition of the Greek word: "One who has never had intercourse." Are you trying to suggest that the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is that she DID have sex?
.
Moot.
1. IF Jesus originally said these words in Aramaic (and that is not - and cannot be known), then we don't have those words. What we all HAVE is the NT words infallibly inspired by God Himself (which is in Greek).
2. IF Jesus spoke the words in Aramaic (and see # 1 above), and IF God had to translate those words into Greek, then I trust God's translation.
.
It's likely he spoke more than just Aramaic. He probably spoke greek as well. In fact, it's more like a given that he spoke greek.
Josiah said:1. IF Jesus originally said these words in Aramaic (and that is not - and cannot be known), then we don't have those words. What we all HAVE is the NT words infallibly inspired by God Himself (which is in Greek).
2. IF Jesus spoke the words in Aramaic (and see # 1 above), and IF God had to translate those words into Greek, then I trust God's translation.
1. The truth is yes that it can be known. It can be known by analyzing the sentence structures that the Gospels are written. The same way the FBI analyses letters. Reasonable conclusions can be reached.
2. and yet those words were penned by fallable men.
parthenos means pure
IF the usual biblical meaning was "pure" then it would be entirely moot vis-a-vis Mary since there's nothing impure about sexual intercourse with one's spouse. Having sex with Joseph would not, in ANY sense, make her "impure."
Josiah said:IF the usual biblical meaning was "pure" then it would be entirely moot vis-a-vis Mary since there's nothing impure about sexual intercourse with one's spouse. Having sex with Joseph would not, in ANY sense, make her "impure."
What you say makes no sense since the Parthenos does not qualify her sexual life but her overall life... so the "no-sex" nonsense term you use degrates the Theotokos into a mere physical being and does not potray to her spiritual life. You voluntarily reduce her to a "natural man" void of the Grace of God....conserning yourself ONLY with her physical presence not as a hypostasis of God rather body ONLY...
yes, you did. Verb tense indicating past/present/future does not mean a neccesity for future ad infinitum. She could simply be saying, "I'm not having sex, I haven't had sex, and for now I won't be. Status change would of course, be with her marriage to Joseph.California Josiah -
1. your particularized use of the term "no-sex" as a translation for parthenos reduces virginity to a matter of flesh only
2. Gabriel tells Mary of a FUTURE event (she will conceive); Mary, then betrothed, responds: "I know not a man" using a verb tense that states a fact which is fact past/present/future (CONTINUOUS)
given the latter, if we are to accept your point we must conclude that either:
1.the Bible is in error
2. Mary lied
which to do propose, or did I miss an option ?
yes, you did. Verb tense indicating past/present/future does not mean a neccesity for future ad infinitum. She could simply be saying, "I'm not having sex, I haven't had sex, and for now I won't be. Status change would of course, be with her marriage to Joseph.
there is no profession of a vow of perpetual chastity, no decleration of the intention of perpetual virginity, no reason to believe that statement means any such thing.
Greetings. This form of the word "know" is used 7 times according to this fairly good interlinear.California Josiah -
1. your particularized use of the term "no-sex" as a translation for parthenos reduces virginity to a matter of flesh only
2. Gabriel tells Mary of a FUTURE event (she will conceive); Mary, then betrothed, responds: "I know not a man" using a verb tense that states a fact which is fact past/present/future (CONTINUOUS)
given the latter, if we are to accept your point we must conclude that either:
1.the Bible is in error
2. Mary lied
which to do propose, or did I miss an option ?
I saw them. I'm unable to agree. Nothing gained in going on about it.The future includes her intended marriage to Joseph; Gabriel does not indicate when she will conceive; hence, her continuous statement includes the planned marriage.
BTW, I responded to your objections on Joses/Joseph and naming customs.
I saw them. I'm unable to agree. Nothing gained in going on about it.
Greetings. This form of the word "know" is used 7 times according to this fairly good interlinear.
It has helped me immensely in keeping my translations CONSISTANT.
http://www.scripture4all.org/
ginwskw vi present act 1 singular Used 7 times in NC
Textus Rec.) Luke 1:34 eipen de mariam proV ton aggelon pwV estai touto epei andra ou ginwskw
Luke 1:34 Said yet Mariam toward the messenger, "How shall be this, since a man not I-am-knowing/ginwskw <1097> (5719) ?
1 Corinthians 13:12 For we are observing at-present through mirror in obscurity then yet face toward face at present I am knowing/ginwskw <1097> (5719) out of part the yet I shall be knowing according as also I am known.
NKJV) Luke 1:34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?"
NKJV) 1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
Textus Rec.) 1 Corinthians 13:12 blepomen gar arti di esoptrou en ainigmati tote de proswpon proV proswpon arti ginwskw ek merouV tote de epignwsomai kaqwV kai epegnwsqhn
How is that known? I have a book in which I read the words, "Shepherd us to that bright place, into fields where joy is ringing." How can you determine, with dogmatic certainty, if that is actually a translation of some other language, and if so, which?
Absolutely, which is why it matters not who penned them. In the words of the Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 136, "The Bible is the very words of God and so there can be no greater credibility. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does this mean? It means that God is the Author of the Bible and its words are His. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished."
Thus, IF Jesus originally spoke these words in some other language (and I want to know how you can dogmatically determine that), then God is the translator of those words. I do not agree with you that you are a better translator than He and that He somehow "goofed."
Now, back to the issue at hand. How is it specifically LOVING to share a story or report which is obviosly unsubstantiated and expremely personal, private and intimate - something you'd not want spread around among billions of people as the most important level of information? How is that specificly LOVING?
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?