Baptist sermon on Mary. need help

[Gorgias]

Adultery was one of the avenues by which the covenant could be dissolved.

“Dissolved”? That’s one way of putting it.

‘Ended’ might be a better way of putting it: ended – by virtue of the fact that your adulterous spouse has gotten himself put to death by stoning, in punishment for his sin!

 

[Cathoholic]

Cottice. You said concerning (after nisuin):

QUOTE:
That was when the marriage ceremony was complete.

You are right on this point. I am not going to argue with that. Because it is correct.

But I think you may be missing my point. Betrothal or “kiddushin” is WHEN the marriage actually takes place. Even BEFORE the “ceremony” is complete.

A couple is still man and wife after kiddushin (betrothal).

QUOTE:
My position is that Mary was betrothed but not married.

Again, first of all, “betrothed” IS MARRIED. That is precisely WHY the angel from Heaven refers to the Blessed Virgin Mary as St. Joseph’s . . . . . “WIFE” and not “fiancé”. OK?

If you (or any other readers of this thread) are married, you (they) were really and actually married EVEN BEFORE you and your spouse consummated the marriage.

They are still “man and wife” after they leave the Church, but before they get home. Even if you had another “ceremony” after you were married.

But even pretending St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary were merely less than married, doesn’t it strike you at least a little odd when the Archangel Gabriel said to the Blessed Virgin, that you (Mary) are going to have a “son”, Mary responds . . . .”HOW can this come about?”

This response would be non-sense even for an “engaged woman” too, much less a woman that Heaven refers to as the “WIFE” (“gynaika”) of St. Joseph (Mt. 1:20).

Also. As I stated earlier . . . .

. . . . . Even the Rabbis say (here for example). . . .

Once kiddushin is complete, the woman is legally the wife of the man. The relationship created by kiddushin can only be dissolved by death or divorce.

QUOTE:
My position is that Mary was betrothed . . . .

Kiddushin is “betrothal” and results in a “man and wife” situation.

 

[cottice]

Cottice. You said concerning (after nisuin):

QUOTE:
That was when the marriage ceremony was complete.

You are right on this point. I am not going to argue with that. Because it is correct.

But I think you may be missing my point. Betrothal or “kiddushin” is WHEN the marriage actually takes place. Even BEFORE the “ceremony” is complete.

A couple is still man and wife after kiddushin (betrothal).

QUOTE:
My position is that Mary was betrothed but not married.

Again, first of all, “betrothed” IS MARRIED. That is precisely WHY the angel from Heaven refers to the Blessed Virgin Mary as St. Joseph’s . . . . . “WIFE” and not “fiancé”. OK?

If you (or any other readers of this thread) are married, you (they) were really and actually married EVEN BEFORE you and your spouse consummated the marriage.

They are still “man and wife” after they leave the Church, but before they get home. Even if you had another “ceremony” after you were married.

But even pretending St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary were merely less than married, doesn’t it strike you at least a little odd when the Archangel Gabriel said to the Blessed Virgin, that you (Mary) are going to have a “son”, Mary responds . . . .”HOW can this come about?”

This response would be non-sense even for an “engaged woman” too, much less a woman that Heaven refers to as the “WIFE” (“gynaika”) of St. Joseph (Mt. 1:20).

Also. As I stated earlier . . . .

. . . . . Even the Rabbis say (here for example). . . .

QUOTE:
My position is that Mary was betrothed . . . .

Kiddushin is “betrothal” and results in a “man and wife” situation.

Okay, I will not belabor the point. I think we both agree that a marriage in 1st century Judea was not as simple as the church service we have today. It was a process that took place over a period of time of days or weeks from its start to completion.

 

[Cathoholic]

cottice:

Okay, I will not belabor the point. I think we both agree that a marriage in 1st century Judea was not as simple as the church service we have today. It was a process that took place over a period of time of days or weeks from its start to completion.

Fair enough.

My whole point was the Blessed Virgin had NO IDEA of HOW She could become pregnant.

And the only plausible reason WHY a healthy young woman (who Heaven can refer to as St. Joseph’s “wife”) would not know HOW she can possibly become pregnant is . . . . is if she was a “wife” who is a consecrated virgin and intended upon remaining a consecrated virgin.

And the Blessed Virgin Mary WAS and IS a Consecrated Virgin.

That’s why it makes perfect sense that Mother Mary can ask . . . “HOW can this come about?”

In this situation, as St. Augustine has said . . . .

ST. AUGUSTINE "Surely, she would not say, ‘HOW shall this be?’ unless she had already vowed herself to God as a virgin . . . If she intended to have intercourse, she wouldn’t have asked this question! . . . .

And I am saying that people who DENY the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (I am NOT saying YOU deny this doctrine cottice), are forced to put forth the some such “interpretation” that . . . .

• This had nothing to do with “virginity” . . . . or . . . .
• This was related to virginity but now Mary is going to throw away Her Virginity because of the Incarnation (or in spite of the Incarnation). . . . or . . .
• Or some other “solution” that doesn’t make sense.

I think the positions of the deniers of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, are untenable, and without foundation by written Tradition (Scripture), oral Tradition, or by history.

Thus the burden of proof is upon these deniers to show one verse where it states the Blessed Virgin Mary had other children and not merely that Jesus had “brothers” (see the NINE TYPES of “brothers” here).

Or the deniers could also show one verse that shows some other person is identified with the blessed Virgin Mary as his/her mother (and “the disciple whom Jesus loved” at the foot of the Cross wouldn’t suffice for obvious reasons).

And I know it can’t be done (because the verse isn’t there). There is NOT ONE VERSE that states either of these things.