Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This disagrees with the biblical account of the Fall. God told Eve that he would "greatly multiply (or increase)" her pain in childbirth. You cannot multiply or increase what is not already there, so the original plan was not that babies were painlessly teleported out of mothers.
We have to interpret the Genesis account and the account of the birth of Christ within the framework of the Apostolic Tradition. There's no point in arguing semantics since the Tradition has already authoritatively spoken on this topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saibot
And when you start theorizing that the birth canal was not supposed to exist but is a result of the Fall, well, you are straying away from Scripture into your own fantasy.
I "theorize" no such thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saibot
Being free from original sin did not prevent Jesus from feeling tired, or hungry, or bleeding and dying. Again--by saying that being free from original sin prevented Mary from feeling pain in childbirth, you are trying to make Mary more holy than Jesus himself.
I've already addressed this objection back in Post #88.
Where did you get "alma" from? The Greek word used in Luke 1:27 is παρθένον (parthenos).
At any rate, our belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is not based on quibbles with verbiage.
It is based on Apostolic Tradition.
We all know the gospel ascribed to Luke was a copy, paste and enhanced version of the original ascribed to Mark.
Luke couldn't even get the lineage from Joseph to David the same. Then is the much bigger problem that Jewish lineage is determined by the female side, not the male side. So as Luke is written, the Jesus of the story does not even fit.
Lastly, the Greek "parthenos" has various meanings. One is virgin, one of the others is young woman, just like the Hebrew before it. Many biblical scholars agree that at best the meaning is nebulous.
As you say, it is apostolic tradition. Tradition never makes a proof. And you probably are well aware, that apostolic tradition did not exist when Luke was written, but didn't appear until the third century.
As you wish. I have no real interest whatsoever in the concept of virginity or its status but the idea that someone having sex would somehow be unchaste is something I cannot get my mind around.
She was already betrothed to Joseph. If she had expected to have sexual relations with him, she would not have been surprised at all to find out that she was going to have a child. Yet alas, she was surprised...
She was surprised because she knew she had not yet been with a man...ANY man.
And Joseph was surprised because HE knew he had not been with Mary, and he pondered what he should do about Mary.
He COULD'VE had her stoned, but instead was considering putting her away, until the time of the baby's arrival
Okay, you've already lost any credibility you had in your first three words by tacitly admitting that you're not discussing this topic in good faith.
Therefore, your posts aren't worth my time.
However, because others may read your posts and be scandalized by them, it's only right that I respond.
Quote:
Originally Posted by normstad
Luke couldn't even get the lineage from Joseph to David the same. Then is the much bigger problem that Jewish lineage is determined by the female side, not the male side. So as Luke is written, the Jesus of the story does not even fit.
Luke was not a Jew (as far as we know), so I'm not sure why we should expect him to list a genealogy the "Jewish way".
As to the seemingly conflicting genealogies put forth between Matthew and Luke (contrary to your claim that Luke's genealogy is a faulty copy of Mark's, as Mark does not give a genealogy), you are far from the first unbeliever to bring this up, and St. Augustine provided a very simple solution that is summed up in this very brief four minute video:
As you say, it is apostolic tradition. Tradition never makes a proof. And you probably are well aware, that apostolic tradition did not exist when Luke was written, but didn't appear until the third century.
"Proof" is a mathematical term and not really a theological one. To suggest that Apostolic Tradition did not exist when Luke was written, but "appeared" in the 3rd century suggests that you don't understand what Apostolic Tradition is.
Hmmm...no...if you KNOW you've never had sexual relations with anyone, it'd be a big surprise if you ended up pregnant.
All Joseph knew (at the time) was that he was not the father.
The angel said "you will conceive", future tense. The angel did not tell her that she was pregnant at that moment.
If she had expected to soon have sexual relations, she would not have wondered "how this could be", as we assume she understood the birds and the bees and knew exactly how it "could be".
The angel said "you will conceive", future tense. The angel did not tell her that she was pregnant at that moment.
If she had expected to soon have sexual relations, she would not have wondered "how this could be", as we assume she understood the birds and the bees and knew exactly how it "could be".
That's really dicey. You are basing an entire doctrine on one possible translation of one word, written by somebody that didn't even witness the event being described. We don't know when Joseph and Mary were planning to marry, nor do we know exactly what was said in the conversation Mary had with the angel, so the "how could it be" comment can't be placed in context. We do know that Jesus had brothers. We have no information indicating they were step-brothers or half-brothers. The most straightforward explanation is that Jesus was simply the oldest of the children borne by Mary.
That's really dicey. You are basing an entire doctrine on one possible translation of one word, written by somebody that didn't even witness the event being described. We don't know when Joseph and Mary were planning to marry, nor do we know exactly what was said in the conversation Mary had with the angel, so the "how could it be" comment can't be placed in context. We do know that Jesus had brothers. We have no information indicating they were step-brothers or half-brothers. The most straightforward explanation is that Jesus was simply the oldest of the children borne by Mary.
I look at the Scriptures in a very different way
the birth of Jesus in the gospels is about fulfilling Hebrew Scripture, as the appointed time had arrived, and in Matthew his conception was by the Holy Spirit, this is not speaking of a natural thing
Mat 1:18**And of Jesus Christ, the birth was thus: for His mother Mary having been betrothed to Joseph, before their coming together she was found to have conceived from the Holy Spirit,
Mat 1:19**and her husband Joseph being righteous, and not willing to make her an example, resolved to send her away privately.
Mat 1:20**And on his thinking of these things, behold, a messenger of the LORD appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, you may not fear to receive your wife Mary, for that which was begotten in her [is] of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 1:21**and she will bring forth a Son, and you will call His Name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
Mat 1:22**And all this has come to pass, that it may be fulfilled that was spoken by the LORD through the prophet, saying,
Mat 1:23**“Behold, the virgin will conceive, and she will bring forth a Son, and they will call His Name Emmanuel,” which is, being interpreted, “God with us.”
The brothers of the Lord I believe are also not referring to any natural, physical children of Mary
Mat 12:46**And while He was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers had stood outside, seeking to speak to Him,
Mat 12:47**and one said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers stand outside, seeking to speak to You.”
Mat 12:48**And He answering said to him who spoke to Him, “Who is My mother? And who are My brothers?”
Mat 12:49**And having stretched forth His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold, My mother and My brothers!
Mat 12:50**For whoever may do the will of My Father who is in the heavens, He is My brother, and sister, and mother.”
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
