For those of you fluent in biblical Greek, can you let me know if the verbiage in the annunciation gives any sort of idea about the timing behind when Mary will conceive and bear Jesus.

A Protestant friend of mine stated that the verbiage that Gabriel uses means that Mary will conceive and bear a son "imminently". He said this in response to my statement that it makes no sense for Mary to ask how she'll get pregnant in the future if she's planning on consummating her marriage with Joseph.

She says as she is a virgin, not that she plans to remain one forever. It seems she had reason to believe it was imminent and that's why she was surprised, as she was a virgin.

Watch the video below with Father Kappes and William Albrecht…it's well worth the time! Fr. Kappas is native Greek I believe and they answer all of your questions.

Mary and Joseph were betrothed which means they were already legally married when the Angel came to Mary at the annunciation. The Betrothal period was usually about 9 months. Mary understood how babies were made, and yet she did not understand how SHE would conceive being that she was is a state that she does "not know man". The Greek word used was unique and was a past perfect participal which means she is in an ongoing, perpetual state of not knowing man including the past, the present, and the future.

This also explains why Joseph, being a righteous man, intended to divorce her quietly. Mary's perceived sin was not one against Joseph but against God and their vow of celibacy to God.

https://www.youtube.com/live/0wzjAEHyizk?feature=shared

28 minute mark speaks to the perpetual vow to celibacy in the OT. I know these two go much deeper on the point you are looking for…just not sure where to best find it. Their book on Mary is thorough and well researched.

Mary's response to the Angel is more like one of her becoming pregnant was impossible, despite the fact she was married. She did not respond as if she was anticipating having relations or children with Joseph. Her response was similar to mine would be if someone told me I was going to die of a drug overdose…."how can that be since I don't do drugs, I have never done drugs, and I have no intention of doing drugs in the future."

I'll keep trying to find the conversation I am looking for on the topic.

Okay…I think this is what I was looking for on the subject starting about the 29 minute mark.

Why begin this discussion by accepting the sola scriptura premise?

I'm always very curious about the significance of her supposed perpetual virginity. Why does it matter? I've seen posts on SM regarding Mary and, I must admit, it troubles me how contentious this particular point becomes verses some of the other things Catholics hold to be true about her, such as their belief she was sinless, which to me, is much more alarming.

Maybe this isn't the post for this comment; I don't want to derail from the OPs question, just something I have noticed.

Zobel said:

---

Why begin this discussion by accepting the sola scriptura premise?

---

I don't think trying to meet them where they are is necessarily accepting their sola scriptura premise.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

I'm always very curious about the significance of her supposed perpetual virginity. Why does it matter? I've seen posts on SM regarding Mary and, I must admit, it troubles me how contentious this particular point becomes verses some of the other things Catholics hold to be true about her, such as their belief she was sinless, which to me, is much more alarming.

---

For the first 1,500 years of Christianity there was universal consensus that Mary was a perpetual virgin - and this belief was held by the reformers up to and including Luther, Calvin, and Zwingly. Only in the past few hundred years has Mary's perpetual virginity been denied and only by Protestant Christians who adhere to Sola Scriptura. Is that not something that is alarming to you?

Zobel said:

---

Why begin this discussion by accepting the sola scriptura premise?

---

That's the only premise they accept; and I think it's something that can still be showed through scripture.

I'm with you, but it kind of implies that without that extremely particular verb parsing in that verse, the doctrine should be rejected. Seems like that is sort of accepting a bad premise.

Zobel said:

---

I'm with you, but it kind of implies that without that extremely particular verb parsing in that verse, the doctrine should be rejected. Seems like that is sort of accepting a bad premise.

---

Nah, that was just one of my angles of attack.

Faithful Ag said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

I'm always very curious about the significance of her supposed perpetual virginity. Why does it matter? I've seen posts on SM regarding Mary and, I must admit, it troubles me how contentious this particular point becomes verses some of the other things Catholics hold to be true about her, such as their belief she was sinless, which to me, is much more alarming.

---

For the first 1,500 years of Christianity there was universal consensus that Mary was a perpetual virgin - and this belief was held by the reformers up to and including Luther, Calvin, and Zwingly. Only in the past few hundred years has Mary's perpetual virginity been denied and only by Protestant Christians who adhere to Sola Scriptura. Is that not something that is alarming to you?

---

Calvin? LOL. No, there was no need to even speculate as to her 'perpetual' virginity. Nor is there now.

Luke is among the least "Roman Catholic" books to rely on, broadly. From the first part of Joseph Fitzmeyer's books in the Anchor bible series on Luke:

It's fairly absurd to me to rely on a belief about Mary's perpetual virginity as to one's theological tenets. If that were in fact important, Jesus would have discussed it, or at the very least Paul. She was a young woman, faithful, and the theotokos ('God bearer') to Christ's birth in this world. That's important, but we don't need to agree as to her life-long sexual habits, imho.

I stand corrected. I meant John Wesley and said Calvin, although Calvin's position did change over the years from a belief in her virginity, to a more neutral position, and then to a rejection. Perhaps this was the seed planted with many of our Protestant brothers who today take offense at the apostolic views on Mary, including her perpetual virginity.

Calvin made the case that Scripture is silent on the issue of Mary's perpetual virginity, correct? He then takes the position that remaining a virgin would do damage to her marriage covenant leading to the belief that she did not remain a virgin…which is counter to the OT examples of vows of celibacy.

Calvin also says that the only reason someone would claim that Mary wasn't a perpetual virgin is for the sake of being argumentative.

Yeah, and Calvin was to some degree really, the NT Wright of his time on the Protestant side of things in Christendom. He read, and thought intensely and in a very verbose way wrote down his thoughts over his life.

To say the least, I believe it is fair to say his thoughts on many topics evolved and changed over time. A complementary way of saying that would be that they became more polished, but in truth I think that despite his Institutes many of his thoughts are still debated intensely by his self-proclaimed followers today.

Again, I've never understood the need to have some sort of article of faith that Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage. It would seem to me a simple matter, even textually, to find that God finds martial sex/procreation as a good thing. Among the biblical mysteries I find more interesting (and unresolvable) in the New Testament would be the naked fugitive who ran away from gethsemane, or the twin of Jesus, Thomas.

I meant that I see Protestants getting really worked up over this point verses others and I don't understand why. I guess my comment was directed toward other Protestants. I'm just always wondering what I'm missing. As I'm typing out this response it's actually perhaps becoming a bit more clear to me, though I still think other beliefs about Mary are more troublesome.

I think the general Protestant sees the beliefs we hold about Mary as competing against Jesus instead of helping to clarify and define them. Everything we believe about Mary helps us in our understanding of Christ and leads us toward Jesus. None of the beliefs about Mary detract from Jesus in any way whatsoever, and the Mother of God should always be held in the absolute highest honor.

Faithful Ag said:

---

I think the general Protestant sees the beliefs we hold about Mary as competing against Jesus instead of helping to clarify and define them. Everything we believe about Mary helps us in our understanding of Christ and leads us toward Jesus. None of the beliefs about Mary detract from Jesus in any way whatsoever, and the Mother of God should always be held in the absolute highest honor.

---

I mean, believing her to be sinless kind of does…but that's a discussion for a different day.

How? If you were God and you were creating your own mother and being God you could preserve and protect your Mom from the evil and stain of sin, would you do that for your mom. Would you honor and love your mother in that way? Would you give her the graces needed to preserve her from the stain of committing personal sin during her lifetime?

I know I would do that for my mother if I could….but maybe this is a conversation for a different thread.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

I think the general Protestant sees the beliefs we hold about Mary as competing against Jesus instead of helping to clarify and define them. Everything we believe about Mary helps us in our understanding of Christ and leads us toward Jesus. None of the beliefs about Mary detract from Jesus in any way whatsoever, and the Mother of God should always be held in the absolute highest honor.

---

I mean, believing her to be sinless kind of does…but that's a discussion for a different day.

---

Respectfully, it does not. If you truly believe that I think it says more about your theology of the Incarnation than it does about some hierarchical flaw in how the Church treats the Mother of God.

She's not sinless because she merited it on her own. She's sinless because God gave her a unique gift, divine grace, that allowed her to be conceived without the privation of original sin and its effects. She was the New Eve.

She was endowed by God through her Immaculate Conception with a special grace that oriented her entirely towards God. While this grace provided her with clarity and strength, it did not eliminate her free will or the presence of external temptations. Mary's sinlessness was not automatic; it was the result of her continual, free cooperation with God's grace, although I would speculate that it would be easier for her to resist than it has been for every other person born since Adam and Eve because of the effects of divine grace that fully "engraced" her. "Hail full of grace…" In Luke 1:28, the Greek word used for "full of grace" is "" (kecharitomene). This word is a perfect passive participle, indicating that Mary has been and continues to be filled with grace in a unique and enduring way. The angel Gabriel's greeting indicates that Gabriel recognized Mary's special role and the profound grace bestowed upon her by God.

Her life demonstrates the potential for human cooperation with divine grace, serving as a model for us. She's not competing in any way with her fully divine and fully human son. She's a glorious example par excellence of what God's grace can do for his creatures who are fully surrendered to him. "l am the hamdmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word."

Zobel said:

---

Why begin this discussion by accepting the sola scriptura premise?

---

This is an excellent point. Why indeed?