Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!ANDREW!DL2Y+ From: dl2y+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Donna Marie Lewis) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia Subject: Re: interesting point Message-ID: Date: 10 Feb 90 00:46:45 GMT References: Sender: Practical Christian Life Reply-To: Practical Christian Life Lines: 22 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway In-Reply-To: >I studied the antenicean period of church history in University (from a >Christian) and therefore was aware that it wasn't until a couple hundred >years A.D. that it became entrenched that 'virgin' meant 'no sex'. Also >he said it was more or less presumed at the time that a couple could or >would have sex between the time they were betrothed and the time they >were married, but that the girl would be dealt with as though she were >a girl who'd not had sex until the ceremony (sort of like how a lot of >girls will wear white at a wedding even though... you know, it's for >social order). If this is true, how come Mary was confused by Gabriel's message ? As she says " How can this be, since I do not know man ? " ( This wording may not be exact) Maybe " virgin " didn't mean what it means now, but " knowing " is a common Biblical expression. By the way, I checked out canonization,as I promised in my last posting, and it is held to be infallible, unless my friend, one of our parish priests, is wrong or I misunderstood him. Sorry I took so long to reply. Between classes, work, and my parish activities I've been too busy to post a lot. Yours in Christ, Donna Marie Lewis Cor ad cor loquitur - " Heart speaks to heart " Gaudete semper - " Rejoice always "