A Textual Challenge to the “Mary and Joseph Had Later Relations” Position

[beechan]

Completely made up, of course. If Mary was sinless, then that means that SHE needed to be birthed from a sinless vessel. Where does it end?

Completely made up, of course. And it makes Mary special among all humans. Nobody else experienced this or has since. That elevates Mary far above her actual status.

Mary needs salvation as we do too.

Let use an analogy.
A man walked into a dirty pit, turned muddy and dirty. Jesus pulled him out of the pit, clean it. He is saved.

A woman walking to the pit. God pulls her away from the pit. The woman is not muddy or dirty because she has been saved before she even falls.

Are we not all sinned, (muddy and dirty) and saved by Jesus?
Only Mary is saved earlier and in anticipation of the fall.

In this sense, Mary is special among all humans. You are right!

 

[Crazy Ivan]

Mary needs salvation as we do too.

Why does Mary need salvation? Salvation is necessary for you and me because you and me sin. The SIN creates the conditions that make salvation necessary. If a person doesn't sin, then they don't need to be saved.

Let use an analogy.
A man walked into a dirty pit, turned muddy and dirty. Jesus pulled him out of the pit, clean it. He is saved.

A woman walking to the pit. God pulls her away from the pit. The woman is not muddy or dirty because she has been saved before she even falls.

Are we not all sinned, (muddy and dirty) and saved by Jesus?
Only Mary is saved earlier and in anticipation of the fall.

In this sense, Mary is special among all humans. You are right!

Are you suggesting that Mary lived her whole life sinless, and that God assumed her into heaven because at that point, late in life, she was ABOUT to sin? That's what you're saying?

Romans 3:23 - "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Jesus being an obvious exception because He was, in fact, God. If Mary was an exception to this, that either (a) makes Romans 3:23 untrue, or (b) makes Mary the exception because she's, in fact, divine.

Which is it?

 

[beechan]

Romans 3:23 - "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Jesus being an obvious exception because He was, in fact, God. If Mary was an exception to this, that either (a) makes Romans 3:23 untrue, or (b) makes Mary the exception because she's, in fact, divine.

Which is it?

Don't forget Jesus was 100% human too. He must have original sin if born through a sinned human vessel.

 

[beechan]

Why does Mary need salvation?

because Mary is not divine, not God. She is a human.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

Don't forget Jesus was 100% human too. He must have original sin if born through a sinned human vessel.

100% human but 100% divine, thus He had no sin nature. I mean, this stuff got worked out by the, ahem, Catholic Church, like 1600 years ago dude.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

because Mary is not divine, not God. She is a human.

Because she is only human, not divine, she has to have inherited a sin nature.

Romans 3:23 - "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

Did Paul lie? Mary is a human, and she's part of "all" there. Nowhere does the Bible make an exception out of Mary.

And if Mary was indeed purely holy, then SHE needed to have been born of a sinless person. And then THAT person needed to be born of a sinless person.


It's like you're so close to getting it, yet.....

 

[beechan]

Pope Pius IX in 1854 issued the ex cathedra statement about the immaculate conception, but Vatican I was just 15 years later. The church went more than 1800 years without this dogma. It couldn't wait another 15?

There was period of unrest and violent throughout Europe. Assembling hundreds of bishops from across war-torn Europe, North America, South America, and missionary territories for a massive global summit amid mid-19th-century political chaos was practically impossible.

 

[beechan]

100% human but 100% divine, thus He had no sin nature. I mean, this stuff got worked out by the, ahem, Catholic Church, like 1600 years ago dude.

Will Jesus be the perfect sacrifice when using his divine nature?
Read Book of Hebrew and see how Paul said Jesus was the perfect lamb to redeem our sins with his HUMAN nature.

 

[beechan]

Because she is only human, not divine, she has to have inherited a sin nature.

Are you not believing that salvation of Jesus could remove your sins?

Just like everytime you use your credit card, you have debts to pay later.
What if someone preloaded your card with $1000000000000000000 credits, you don't have debt using your card.

 

[beechan]

Romans 3:23 - "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Jesus being an obvious exception because He was, in fact, God. If Mary was an exception to this, that either (a) makes Romans 3:23 untrue, or (b) makes Mary the exception because she's, in fact, divine.

Which is it?

Yes, Mary is the exceptional case. That's why Pope Pius IX declared it with Immaculate Conception dogma.

God made Peter, Paul, apostles and some modern day pastors and priests special: they could heal. It doesn't mean these people are all divine beings.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You say Mary's response was simply the natural and normal response of a virgin who had not yet had relations with Joseph. But why would Mary assume conception would occur before the marital relations that, according to your interpretation, She expected with Joseph?

Gabriel does not say:

"You are about to conceive."

or:

"You will conceive immediately."

He simply says:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

As a betrothed woman who, according to your position, expected future marital relations with Joseph, why would Mary's first assumption be that conception would occur prior to consummation rather than through the marital relations She expected in the future?

Instead of appealing to Joseph as the expected explanation, She explains Her difficulty by saying:

"I know not man."

And this becomes even more significant when Gabriel responds with divine conception, appeals to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception, and concludes:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible."

You agree Mary's obstacle was Her virginity. But according to your own position, that virginity was temporary, and at the time Mary asked Her question, She had not yet been given any reason to think the announced conception would occur prior to those future marital relations. So why does She appeal to "I know not man" as the explanation for Her difficulty rather than assume the announced conception would occur through the future marital relations that you argue She expected with Joseph?

That is the difficulty I keep coming back to. Your explanation requires Mary to assume that conception would occur before the marital relations She expected, even though Gabriel never says that and Mary Herself gives no indication that timing is Her concern.

You are trying to read Mary's mind in how she was thiinking. this is not proof, but mere conjecture. Try again.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The protoevangelium of James does exert influence.
Classic Nativity scenes of the gospels have Jesus being born in a wooden stable.
Look at most of the Orthodox Church arts, Jesus being born in a cave. , following this text rather than the canonical gospels.
View attachment 93128

Even though The protoevangelium of James is not scripture, the text has had a massive impact on Orthodox sacred tradition, hymnography, and iconography.

And it is 2 centuries removed as being teh first mention of Mary staying virgin! Sorry But Matthew 1 is very clear like all other sentences that use until with a before and after action. Even first graders know that!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Sounds like you are having to deal with the left right left right left right Vatican Mary NEVER had sex EVER march nonsense

Yes. and they love to muddy the waters with what ifs and could be's and might suggest etc.

 

[beechan]

And it is 2 centuries removed as being teh first mention of Mary staying virgin! Sorry But Matthew 1 is very clear like all other sentences that use until with a before and after action. Even first graders know that!

Goto here:
#41

Does "Until" Mean What You Think It Means? (Matthew 1:25)

Yes it does mean that! You are just so inculcated in your Catholic tradition that you have unconsciously redefined the word until. Example: we did not go outside until it stopped raining. Based on that sentence- they did go outside. There is not modifier saying they changed their mind or...

www.christianityboard.com

You was rebuked before, come back with new argument!

 

[VictoryinJesus]

If Mary expected normal marital relations with Joseph, then conception would not be impossible — only not yet. In that case She would ask when She will conceive, not how conception could occur.

To me it fits with life doesn’t come through the flesh.
There is no “not yet” regarding the flesh.
Without God it is impossible. I’m referring to Life where the Spirit of God will come upon you and you’ll bear fruit that bears forth into Life.
So I see your point it can’t be a “not yet” through the flesh. But as Mary showed it’s a miraculous birth.

And Gabriel’s response still doesn’t fit your interpretation. He does not tell her she will conceive through Joseph once the betrothal period ends. He instead explains a miraculous, non‑sexual conception and reinforces it by citing Elizabeth — a woman whose conception was naturally impossible.

Miraculous non-sexual conception? Isn’t this again described when Paul spoke to them saying “until Christ be formed in you”? Is this not a miraculous conception?

Why do both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention if Mary expected normal marital relations?

Without divine intervention… I think of it as the fruit of God doesn’t come by natural birth, but is given from above. Mary was lowly and humble in her lowly state. God keeps saying this is how it happens for others also.
Proverbs 16:18-19 Pride goes before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. [19] Better it is to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud.

I’m not claiming Mary thought She was incapable of natural conception. I’m pointing out that Luke presents both Mary and Gabriel speaking as though conception is impossible without divine intervention.

Of a woman is a virgin does it add anything to being able to miraculously conceive? That is like saying the flesh can do something to add to what is only by Gods divine intervention. No sexual act involved in
James 1:15-18 Then when lust hath conceived, it brings forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death. [16] Do not err, my beloved brethren. [17] Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. [18] Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

 

[Dryhn]

Yes. and they love to muddy the waters with what ifs and could be's and might suggest etc.

Not forgetting that Vatic Catholic also have their Magisterium & Catechism to be used with the Bible simply being a reference tool
Magi&Cate more propaganda to push some of their nonsense

 

[beechan]

Not forgetting that Vatic Catholic also have their Magisterium & Catechism to be used with the Bible simply being a reference tool
Magi&Cate more propaganda to push some of their nonsense

just because the Catholics follow the Catechism and Magisterium, we are better than those Protestants

 

[Dryhn]

just because the Catholics follow the Catechism and Magisterium, we are better than those Protestants
View attachment 93257

It's GREAT that Vatican/Catholics never deviated from the SHE in Gen 3:15
They NEVER EVER taught otherwise or changed their tune hey beechy :)

Hmm, let's see :-
Ooops, RSV-Catholic edition --- HE not SHE kiss kiss kiss :)

 

[beechan]

It's GREAT that Vatican/Catholics never deviated from the SHE in Gen 3:15
They NEVER EVER taught otherwise or changed their tune hey beechy :)

You know too little about Catholics. You are taught to defame it.


Modern Catholic scholarly translations (including the RSV-CE and the New American Bible) translate the Hebrew text (hû' / masculine pronoun) of the Masoretic text. The famous use of ipsa ("She shall crush") was only a feature of the Latin Vulgate tradition, not a requirement of modern or ancient textual criticism.

 

[Dryhn]

You know too little about Catholics. You are taught to defame it.


Modern Catholic scholarly translations (including the RSV-CE and the New American Bible) translate the Hebrew text (hû' / masculine pronoun) of the Masoretic text. The famous use of ipsa ("She shall crush") was only a feature of the Latin Vulgate tradition, not a requirement of modern or ancient textual criticism.

RSV- Catholic Edition say HE shall bruise -- not SHE
Always changing your Bibles to suit changing trends/beliefs/backpeddling in the Vatican

15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,

and between your seed and her seed;

he shall bruise your head,

and you shall bruise his heel.”