Interesting News article

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by jasonW*:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Jason,

If it's damaging to my faith that I believe that Mary remained a virgin, and she didn't...

...then it's dangerous to your faith that you believe she had marital relations if she remained a virgin.

God bless,

Grant

Grant,

No, I don't believe it would be dangerous. I have no personal theology based upon Mary. If she remained a virgin, this still doesn't mean she is the 'queen of heaven'. It simply means she remained a virgin. That being said, if it turns out she did remain a virgin, something I believe the bible not only doesn't support, but actually refutes, then...ok...she remained a virgin. No big deal.

But, if you assert that her remaining a virgin implies she is the Queen of Heaven and has to be more in line with Catholic theology, well, that is a whole other debate.

In Christ,
jason</font>[/QUOTE]Jason,

I never asked that. I asked only about her perpetual virginity. Take away all the other doctrines about Mary for this instance, and reevaluate what I asked you.

God bless,

Grant

 

[jasonW*]

I will still assert that it is damaging to you and does nothing to me.

I do this for this on simple reason:

1. As a Catholic, you cannot decouple your doctrine of Mary from her perpetual virginity. Doing so would a. ) show the catholic church to be in error; hence, fallable b. ) prove the catholic church is not 'the' church.

As for me; it is not dangerous as her being a virgin doesn't matter to me.

In Christ,
jason

[ October 29, 2002, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: jasonW* ]

 

[GraceSaves]

Jason,

I was never talking about me. I wanted to know your answers to the questions I posed, not necessarily in relationship to my own beliefs.

My whole point was that if it's not dangerous to your faith, why are you so ardently opposed to others believing that she remained a virgin?

God bless,

Grant

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Jason,

I was never talking about me. I wanted to know your answers to the questions I posed, not necessarily in relationship to my own beliefs.

My whole point was that if it's not dangerous to your faith, why are you so ardently opposed to others believing that she remained a virgin?

God bless,

Grant

Who said I was ardently opposed to it? Carson asked someone to respond, so I did.

More to the point, it goes against scripture (how is shown above). If something goes against scripture, might as well correct it right? Still, I would not say I am ardently opposed to it because if someone can show me where I am wrong, and how, I could just as easily change my mind. But until then, I might as well correct error when I see it.

For example. I just made a new Christian friend. He is a pentacostal. If it turns out he is a oneness pentacostal, I will show him how that is no the scriptural truth. Correct error when you see it. Why live in ignorance to the truth?

In Christ,
jason

[ October 29, 2002, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: jasonW* ]

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by jasonW*:
Who said I was ardently opposed to it? Carson asked someone to respond, so I did.

More to the point, it goes against scripture (how is shown above). If something goes against scripture, might as well correct it right? Still, I would not say I am ardently opposed to it because if someone can show me where I am wrong, and how, I could just as easily change my mind. But until then, I might as well correct error when I see it.

For example. I just made a new Christian friend. He is a pentacostal. If it turns out he is a oneness pentacostal, I will show him how that is no the scriptural truth. Correct error when you see it. Why live in ignorance to the truth?

In Christ,
jason

Jason,

You said it was a closed-question...sounds pretty ardantly opposed, if you ask me.

Also, while you disagree with Carson's assertions, and your work on the matter was very thorough and fascinating, did it really CLOSE the case, or merely provide an excellent counter-point? I'm leaning towards the former, rather than the latter.

God bless,

Grant

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Curtis,

Here is the simple Biblical logic behind the dogma of Mary's Perpetual Virginity.

As you pointed out, in Luke 1:34, Mary responds to the angel Gabriel with "How shall this be, since I know not man?"

Mary's response does not make sense without having taken a vow of virginity. She's betrothed to Joseph, right? In her Jewish culture, this meant that Mary was legally married to Joseph and could only be undone by death or divorce.

The Angel Gabriel tells Mary, "you will conceive (future tense) in your womb and bear a son" in 1:31. Mary responds with "How shall this be, since I know not man?" in 1:34.

"To know" is an idiom for "to have conjugal relations with". Mary responds to Gabriel's announcement that she will conceive and bear a child in the future with, "Angel, how can this be??? I do not have sex."

Well, all she has to do is have conjugal relations with Joseph her legal husband, and "whala!" the angel's proclamation will come true: "you will conceive in your womb and bear a son...". But Mary says essentially, "Angel Gabriel, I don't understand, how can this happen?"

If Mary hadn't taken a vow of virginity, then her response elicits quite a bit of stupidity on her part. Come on, Mary, look around! You have a legally binding marriage with a man whom you will "know".

Since Mary took a vow of virginity and was betrothed to Joseph who is to serve as her legal husband and guardian, she can rightly respond to the Angel Gabriel's prophesy with, "How shall this be, since I know not man?" Therefore, through simple logic and reason, we deduce the existence of the vow.

Is this a surprise? Not for the Catholics, or the Orthodox, or Martin Luther, or John Calvin, or Ulrich Zwingly, or John Wesley.

God bless,

Carson

[ October 29, 2002, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[GraceSaves]

Jason,

Before you respond to Carson, I have a feeling of what you'll rebuttal with. Yes, not all translations state, "I know not man." Some say, "For I am a virgin," or other such things. However, logically, none of those change the fact that what was announced was that in the near future Jesus would be conceived, which is not odd, since she was bethrothed. In fact, it would only be natural.

That was bugging me, so I wanted to get it out.

God bless,

Grant

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi Curtis,

If Mary hadn't taken a vow of virginity, then her response elicits quite a bit of stupidity on her part. Come on, Mary, look around! You have a legally binding marriage with a man whom you will "know".

Since Mary took a vow of virginity and was betrothed to Joseph who is to serve as her legal husband and guardian, she can rightly respond to the Angel Gabriel's prophesy with, "How shall this be, since I know not man?" Therefore, through simple logic and reason, we deduce the existence of the vow.

Is this a surprise? Not for the Catholics, or the Orthodox, or Martin Luther, or John Calvin, or Ulrich Zwingly, or John Wesley.

God bless,

Carson

No we can't. There is no vow, there is no hint of a vow, it isn't there. I am quite capable of logic and reason, I demonstare it every day as an electronics troubleshooter. I am smart, Carson. And I take offense to your little way of saying I must not be.

Mary took now vow, and you can't prove she did, using scripture only.

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Mary's response does not make sense without having taken a vow of virginity. She's betrothed to Joseph, right? In her Jewish culture, this meant that Mary was legally married to Joseph and could only be undone by death or divorce.

Not quite. She was betrothed not married, her being betrothed meant that she would be married but was not yet married and thus not to be having sex with her husband to be. It is because she was not yet married and thus not knowing her husband that she asked "How can this be since I am a virgin?"

27 to (35) a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, (36) of the descendants of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. - Luke 1:27 NASB

In the margin note for "engaged" in the Updated NASB, it says:

"Or betrothed; i.e. the first stage of marriage in Jewish culture usually lasting for a year before the wedding night. More [edit: typo on my part] legal than engagement."

So while engagement in the Jewish culture meant more than in other cultures, the betrothed couple was still not married and thus not having sex for about a year prior to the wedding night. No extra-Biblical "vow of virginity" needs to be added.

[ October 30, 2002, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Dualhunter ]

 

[GraceSaves]

DualHunter,

In the last part of your quote, it said:

"More than legal than engagement."

Can I assume that the first "than" was a typo?

God bless,

Grant

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Curtis,

You wrote, "There is no vow, there is no hint of a vow, it isn't there."

I understand your opinion. You've already stated it on the thread.

What I have done is shown you above how Mary's response to the Angel is inexplicable without the existence of the vow. Now, what would be appropriate would be a response from you that demonstrates how "There is no vow, there is no hint of a vow, it isn't there" in light of my presentation.

Blessings,

Carson

[ October 30, 2002, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Dualhunter,

I urge you and everyone else to read more on Jewish Marriage Law by a Rabbinic and Scriptural scholar:

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/talmud.htm

Blessings,

Carson

 

[Dualhunter]

"In Jewish Law a man betrothed to a woman was considered legally married to her. The word for betrothed in Hebrew is Kiddush, a word that is derived from the Hebrew word Kadash which means "holy" "consecrated," "set apart." Because by betrothal (as in Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27) , or marriage, a woman became the peculiar property of her husband, forbidden to others."

Notice that the reason given for why she is considered legally married is that because she "became the peculiar property of her husband, forbidden to others." The woman would not have been having sex with her husband until she was actually married, so no sex before the wedding night. Scripture does not say that Mary took a vow, nor does it hint it, rather it hints that she had other children through Joseph once Jesus was born.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Dualhunter,

I presented the link not only for the first section of the page, but also for the remainder, which speaks of virginity and celibacy. The entire presentation is delicious. I urge you to read it in its entirety even if you disagree with its conclusions.

If Mary is going to have conjugal relations with Joseph when their wedding occurs (which is inevitably going to occur due to Jewish Marriage Law), then her response is still inexplicable. Whether the marriage is going to occur in one day or five hundred days, if Mary hasn't made a vow of virginity (as the link I gave you presents as a great likelihood), then she is inevitably going to have sex with her legally binding husband and so the Angel Gabriel's statement should make complete sense. What doesn't make sense is her response.

Also, in Chapter 7 of "Jewish Marriage in Antiquity", M.L. Satlow tells us that the period between the betrothal and the marriage night could have included sexual relations for at least
Judean Jews, so virginity in this one-year time frame was not a necessity, strictly put.

yours in Christ,

Carson

[ October 30, 2002, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Also, in Chapter 7 of "Jewish Marriage in Antiquity", M.L. Satlow tells us that the period between the betrothal and the marriage night could have included sexual relations for at least
Judean Jews, so virginity in this one-year time frame was not a necessity, strictly put.

yours in Christ,

Carson

In Mary's case she was not having sex with her betrothed prior to her marriage which is precisely why she ask "How can this be". It makes perfect sense without a vow of virginity which is not found in Scripture.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Also, in Chapter 7 of "Jewish Marriage in Antiquity", M.L. Satlow tells us that the period between the betrothal and the marriage night could have included sexual relations for at least
Judean Jews, so virginity in this one-year time frame was not a necessity, strictly put.

One man's opinion in this matter does not matter if it is the wrong opinion. You obviously quoted one of your infamous liberal scholars as you are prone to do. One is able to quote a dozen conservative scholars arguing for her virginity in this case if you want to have a battle of the scholars. In this case you are plain wrong. Mary did not have sex before marriage during her betrothal period. The Scripture is clear on that. If she did Josheph would would have "put her away," or divorced her. Your problem, just as in other threads that I have encountered, is a failure to believe the Word of God. How can you be a seminarian student and not believe God's Word??

Mary was a virgin and you are insinuating, even against the Catholic's teaching, that she may not have been.
She did not take a vow of virginity. If she did it would be in Scripture as such. You cannot argue from silence. But we do know that she was betrothed and remained a virgin because she was not yet married, as was the custom to do, as does the Scripture say. Will you not believe the Scripture?
DHK

 

[Johnv]

She did not take a vow of virginity. If she did it would be in Scripture as such. You cannot argue from silence.

SIDEBAR: I find it amusing, however, that some will argue that Jesus abstained from alcohol, because there aren't any scriptures illustrating that he put a glass of wine to his lips. In that case, they seem to think that scriptural silence speaks volumes.

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by Johnv:
SIDEBAR: I find it amusing, however, that some will argue that Jesus abstained from alcohol, because there aren't any scriptures illustrating that he put a glass of wine to his lips. In that case, they seem to think that scriptural silence speaks volumes.

Such people do not know the Scriptures:

33 "For John the Baptist has come (21) eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, 'He has a demon!'
34 "The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' - Luke 7:33-34

 

[GraceSaves]

DHK and DualHunter,

Your responses to Carson are shameful. He never ONCE said that Mary had sex before marriage. He said that in that time, if one was a Judean Jew, and if one was legally bethrothed, one could have had sexual relations. He said this to further prove that the angel's announcement to Mary should not have been a shock, for they COULD HAVE had sexual relations.

Your whole flying-off-the-handle rebuttal only further proves our side, that she had taken a vow of virginity, since in her bethrothal state, they COULD have been having marital relations...but they were not.

God bless,

Grant

[ October 30, 2002, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
DHK and DualHunter,

Your responses to Carson are shameful. He never ONCE said that Mary had sex before marriage. He said that in that time, if one was a Judean Jew, and if one was legally bethrothed, one could have had sexual relations. He said this to further prove that the angel's announcement to Mary should not have been a shock, for they COULD HAVE had sexual relations.

You're whole flying-off-the-handle rebuttal only further proves our side, that she had taken a vow of virginity, since in her bethrothal state, they COULD have been having marital relations...but they were not.

God bless,

Grant

Even if Jewish tradition really allows Mary to have sex with Joseph prior to marriage, that does not define the Law of God. Saying that Mary and Joseph could have had sex does not change the fact that we all agree that she was not having sex. The significance of this is that she not an example of those who do have sex prior to marriage and thus it is of no surprise that she would ask "how can this be". Traditional and legal posibilities are meaningless if Mary was not exercising them.

There is also reason to doubt the claim that Mary could have had sex with with Joseph prior to marriage:

Please note that "Kiddushin" refers to the initial stage of marriage, at which point the husband and wife are not yet permitted to each other, and then "Nisuin" refers to the second stage, which completes the deed.

http://www.aishdas.org/webshas/ishus/kinyan.htm