Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Perpetual Virginity of the Ever Virgin

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Perpetual Virginity of the Ever Virgin

    It is fascinating when considering how Mary responded to Archangel Gabriel when he told her that she will bear a son. The Virgin asked, "How will be done when I don't know of any man?" This is a young girl who is about to get married to Joseph, and any woman in her position and in her right mind will automatically think that she can have a son after her marriage with Joseph. Mary's answer is very baffling for someone who is going to get married in the conventional way. She questioned the Angel about how that can be done when she doesn't know any man. What about the man.....Joseph, her fiance? Did Mary have a momentary lapse of memory? Of course not! There can only be one conclusion about her strange response. Her response means that she planned on continuing to honor her virginal consecration to God in agreement with the man God sent her to preserve that.

    It all makes sense when you consider that Mary's marriage to Joseph was a marriage of necessity whereby Joseph needed help raising his children and Mary needed a safe home whereby she can honor her virginal consecration to God away from the Temple. Little did they know that this presented the perfect predestined environment for God to incarnate His Son.

    Now all those Sola Scriptualists out there will rant and rave that none of this is in the Bible and how dare I use logic to come to this conclusion. Unless Sola Scripturalists can come up with a more logical explanation than what I presented then I rest my case.



  • #2
    Originally posted by UnionofGrace&Nature View Post
    It is fascinating when considering how Mary responded to Archangel Gabriel when he told her that she will bear a son. The Virgin asked, "How will be done when I don't know of any man?" This is a young girl who is about to get married to Joseph, and any woman in her position and in her right mind will automatically think that she can have a son after her marriage with Joseph. Mary's answer is very baffling for someone who is going to get married in the conventional way. She questioned the Angel about how that can be done when she doesn't know any man. What about the man.....Joseph, her fiance? Did Mary have a momentary lapse of memory? Of course not! There can only be one conclusion about her strange response. Her response means that she planned on continuing to honor her virginal consecration to God in agreement with the man God sent her to preserve that.

    It all makes sense when you consider that Mary's marriage to Joseph was a marriage of necessity whereby Joseph needed help raising his children and Mary needed a safe home whereby she can honor her virginal consecration to God away from the Temple. Little did they know that this presented the perfect predestined environment for God to incarnate His Son.

    Now all those Sola Scriptualists out there will rant and rave that none of this is in the Bible and how dare I use logic to come to this conclusion. Unless Sola Scripturalists can come up with a more logical explanation than what I presented then I rest my case.

    Logically, how do you come to the conclusion that she was a consecrated temple virgin? Show your evidence that there was such a position within Judaism in that time frame. Show your evidence that Mary was a consecrated temple virgin. Logically, how do you come to the conclusion that Joseph had children?

    My logical conclusion without having to make up fairytales about peoples whole lives is this: When the Angel appeared to her, she knew the pregnancy was imminent, as indeed it was.

    So simple without having to make up a storyboard to make your manmade dogma fit.

    I can't believe I used to believe and practice this obnoxious stretching of the imagination.
    Goats love their tea!

    Strong's #3982

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Peitho View Post

      Logically, how do you come to the conclusion that she was a consecrated temple virgin? Show your evidence that there was such a position within Judaism in that time frame. Show your evidence that Mary was a consecrated temple virgin. Logically, how do you come to the conclusion that Joseph had children?

      My logical conclusion without having to make up fairytales about peoples whole lives is this: When the Angel appeared to her, she knew the pregnancy was imminent, as indeed it was.

      So simple without having to make up a storyboard to make your manmade dogma fit.

      I can't believe I used to believe and practice this obnoxious stretching of the imagination.
      Exactly.
      "We are not to understand the other side; we are to discuss to expound the truth." -- A misguided apologist
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      "The Law is a storm which wrecks your hopes of self-salvation,
      but washes you upon the Rock of Ages."
      -- Charles Haddon Spurgeon

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Peitho View Post

        Logically, how do you come to the conclusion that she was a consecrated temple virgin? Show your evidence that there was such a position within Judaism in that time frame. Show your evidence that Mary was a consecrated temple virgin. Logically, how do you come to the conclusion that Joseph had children?

        My logical conclusion without having to make up fairytales about peoples whole lives is this: When the Angel appeared to her, she knew the pregnancy was imminent, as indeed it was.

        So simple without having to make up a storyboard to make your manmade dogma fit.

        I can't believe I used to believe and practice this obnoxious stretching of the imagination.
        If "she knew the pregnancy was imminent" then why didn't she say so? Instead she says the exact opposite: that without normal relations how can she possibly conceive? You're disregarding the facts as any typical evangelical perpetually does.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Theo1689 View Post

          Exactly.
          If "she knew the pregnancy was imminent" then why didn't she say so? Instead she says the exact opposite: that without normal relations how can she possibly conceive? And this is with her engagement and marriage to Joseph staring her in her face. You're the 2nd evangelical disregarding the facts. Can I have a 3rd evangelical?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by UnionofGrace&Nature View Post
            [B]It is fascinating when considering how Mary responded to Archangel Gabriel when he told her that she will bear a son. The Virgin asked, "How will be done when I don't know of any man?" This is a young girl who is about to get married to Joseph, and any woman in her position and in her right mind will automatically think that she can have a son after her marriage with Joseph. Mary's answer is very baffling for someone who is going to get married in the conventional way. She questioned the Angel about how that can be done when she doesn't know any man. What about the man.....Joseph, her fiance? Did Mary have a momentary lapse of memory?
            Mary knew Joseph, she just has not gotten to "know" him yet. This "know" is sexual intimacy. But, you already knew this.

            Originally posted by UnionofGrace&Nature View Post
            Of course not! There can only be one conclusion about her strange response. Her response means that she planned on continuing to honor her virginal consecration to God in agreement with the man God sent her to preserve that.
            Actually, none of this makes sense.


            Originally posted by UnionofGrace&Nature View Post
            It all makes sense when you consider that Mary's marriage to Joseph was a marriage of necessity whereby Joseph needed help raising his children and Mary needed a safe home whereby she can honor her virginal consecration to God away from the Temple. Little did they know that this presented the perfect predestined environment for God to incarnate His Son.

            Now all those Sola Scriptualists out there will rant and rave that none of this is in the Bible and how dare I use logic to come to this conclusion. Unless Sola Scripturalists can come up with a more logical explanation than what I presented then I rest my case.

            You have used absolutely no logic to come to this conclusion. Just a desperate attempt to find what you want to see. In another word, Eisegesis

            The protest against Rome will not end as long as I have one breath of air in my lungs.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by UnionofGrace&Nature View Post
              If "she knew the pregnancy was imminent" then why didn't she say so? Instead she says the exact opposite: that without normal relations how can she possibly conceive? And this is with Marriage staring her in her face.
              <sigh>
              You just made that same argument two minutes ago.
              All you're doing is repeating youself.

              You're the 2nd evangelical disregarding the facts.
              What "facts" have you presented?!
              NONE that I can see.
              Only speculation after speculation after self-serving speculation after self-serving speculation after self-serving speculation.

              That's how we got MORMONISM.
              That's how we got SCIENTOLOGY.
              That's how we got JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.

              Sorry, but I will instead believe the BIBLE.


              Can I have a 3rd evangelical?
              <sigh>

              You're not interested in Christian discussion, are you?
              You are simply interested in insulting anyone who dares disagree with your nonsense.

              Well, guess what? Your insults haven't convinced me that "perpetual virginity" is true.
              So congratulations!
              "We are not to understand the other side; we are to discuss to expound the truth." -- A misguided apologist
              --------------------------------------------------------------------------
              "The Law is a storm which wrecks your hopes of self-salvation,
              but washes you upon the Rock of Ages."
              -- Charles Haddon Spurgeon

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by UnionofGrace&amp;Nature View Post
                If "she knew the pregnancy was imminent" then why didn't she say so? Instead she says the exact opposite: that without normal relations how can she possibly conceive? You're disregarding the facts as any typical evangelical perpetually does.
                But she did!
                "How can this be! I KNOW not a man" PRESENT TENSE. She knows it is imminent and can't comprehend because she has yet to lay with Joseph. She does not say, I will know not a man in the future or for the rest of my life. She says in the present tense, I KNOW not a man. She mentions nothing of her future encounters or "plans" to stay a virgin. My the leap one must go to read such an absurdity.

                You are blinded by a man made fairy-tale dogma that forces you to disregard the facts as any typical catholic perpetually does.

                I see you are unable to substantiate with any historical relevance that there was such a thing as Jewish consecrated temple virgins of that time nor can you substantiate that Mary was one! You also neglect to substantiate with any evidence that Joseph had children.



                Goats love their tea!

                Strong's #3982

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by leonard03782 View Post
                  Mary knew Joseph, she just has not gotten to "know" him yet. This "know" is sexual intimacy. But, you already knew this
                  The word "yet" is not in Mary's quote. You are deliberately injecting that word in order to alter what Mary actually said. This is a desperate attempt on your part to find what you want to see. In another word, Eisegesis.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by UnionofGrace&amp;Nature View Post
                    The word "yet" is not in Mary's quote. You are deliberately injecting that word in order to alter what Mary actually said. This is a desperate attempt on your part to find what you want to see. In another word, Eisegesis.
                    And you are injecting the word "never" with your position.

                    She does not say, I will not know a man. She makes no hint that she will never lay with a man and will remain a virgin forever.
                    Goats love their tea!

                    Strong's #3982

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Theo1689 View Post


                      You just made that same argument two minutes ago.
                      All you're doing is repeating youself.
                      because you have not addressed what Mary actually said in Luke 1:34.

                      What "facts" have you presented?!
                      NONE that I can see.
                      Luke 1:34.

                      Sorry, but I will instead believe the BIBLE.
                      Do you believe Luke 1:34?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Peitho View Post

                        But she did!
                        Show me the exact chapter and verse where you claim that Mary meant that "she knew the pregnancy was imminent".

                        "How can this be! I KNOW not a man" PRESENT TENSE.
                        She knows it is imminent and can't comprehend because she has yet to lay with Joseph. She does not say, I will know not a man in the future or for the rest of my life. She says in the present tense, I KNOW not a man. She mentions nothing of her future encounters or "plans" to stay a virgin. My the leap one must go to read such an absurdity.
                        The word "yet" is not in Mary's quote. You are deliberately injecting that word in order to alter what Mary actually said. This is a desperate attempt on your part to find what you want to see. In another word, Eisegesis.

                        You are blinded by a man made fairy-tale dogma that forces you to disregard the facts as any typical catholic perpetually does.
                        Au contraire. Your Eisegesis is where you falter.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Peitho View Post
                          And you are injecting the word "never" with your position.

                          She does not say, I will not know a man. She makes no hint that she will never lay with a man and will remain a virgin forever.
                          So you're saying that Mary's intention in Luke 1:34 was to inform the Archangel about human relations? Are you saying that the Archangel was not informed about human relations? If that was the case then why didn't they get into a dialogue about that? The truth of the matter is that the Archangel knew all about that and immediately corrected Mary as to what's going to happen, thus protecting her virginity. Your story falters in many ways.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by UnionofGrace&amp;Nature View Post
                            because you have not addressed what Mary actually said in Luke 1:34.
                            You pre-emptively ANNOUNCED that you would NOT ACCEPT any interpretation that disagreed with your false church's teachings.
                            So why should I waste my time?

                            Do you believe Luke 1:34?
                            Thank you for the insulting question.
                            I've come to expect no less from "Romanists", sadly.

                            1) Of COURSE I believe Luke 1:34. True Christians believe ALL Scripture.

                            2) Luke 1:34 doesn't teach "perpetual virginity".

                            3) Your constant insulting and condescending tone makes me want to run away from your false church's teachings as fast as possible. I'm sure you're very proud of yourself.
                            "We are not to understand the other side; we are to discuss to expound the truth." -- A misguided apologist
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            "The Law is a storm which wrecks your hopes of self-salvation,
                            but washes you upon the Rock of Ages."
                            -- Charles Haddon Spurgeon

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by UnionofGrace&amp;Nature View Post
                              Show me the exact chapter and verse where you claim that Mary said "she knew the pregnancy was imminent".
                              I KNOW (present tense) not a man.

                              The word "yet" is not in Mary's quote.
                              I didn't say it was. I am explaining the reality of her present tense in her statement. At that present point in time, she had YET to lay with Joseph. Are you suggesting that she was secretly shacking up with Joseph? How odd.


                              You are deliberately injecting that word in order to alter what Mary actually said.
                              No I am not. At that moment in time, when Mary said, I KNOW (present tense) not a man, had she YET to be with a man? Yes or no?


                              This is a desperate attempt on your part to find what you want to see. In another word, Eisegesis.
                              How can that be when we know she was a virgin at that moment when she was visited by the angel and had YET to lay with a man?????? How odd.

                              Au contraire. Your Eisegesis is where you falter.
                              There is no Eisegesis. I have simple posted what she did say and her present condition at that time. She had YET to lay with a man. Is this not true?

                              It is you that is saying mary said, "I will know not a man ever." You cannot prove that from the statement, "I KNOW (present tense)not a man." That statement does not remotely suggest that she plans on being a virgin forever.

                              Again, I ask you to prove that there was such a thing as Jewish consecrated temple virgins of that time. Prove that Mary was one. Prove that Joseph had children.

                              Look at what you have to do to substantiate your man-made dogma! It's absurd. And you know it, hence the reason why you keep refusing to address what I am asking.


                              Goats love their tea!

                              Strong's #3982

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X