B
bluelake
Guest
Kevin,
The Lord reveals himself to us when we are ready to receive his graces. We walk by faith.
You don’t have to prove anything.
See Eph.2:8-10God bless,
bluelake
- Status
The Lord reveals himself to us when we are ready to receive his graces. We walk by faith.
You don’t have to prove anything.
See Eph.2:8-10God bless,
bluelake
S
Steven_John
Guest
Huge stretching, this word added to the title of the thread now implies salvation is dependant on believing Mary (bbhn) is needed for salvation.
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
In addition to what you have written I find it interesting to note that after Christ’s Resurrection Jesus found Peter not in Jerusalem but out by the Sea of Galilee. By his example Peter shows his understanding of what is meant by the word “until”; and I presume this was common understanding of the term.
J
John1
Guest
Hi Tom,
In response to post #265, I agree that showing respect to the mother of Jesus is in every Christians best interest. I don’t really believe that Mary plays any part in our salvation, at least none that the any of the Apostles mentioned. In fact it seems that Jesus is the only Mediator between God and men, considering what is written in 1 Timothy 2:5 and also what is written in Hebrews 7:25, but really I think that’s for another discussion. In Romans 8 it says that the Spirit himself intercedes for us, but again that’s for another discussion. As far as whether or not Mary remained a Virgin after the birth of Jesus, I don’t see as a stumbling point because I respect Mary whether she was or she wasn’t. Mary was a servant of God, and the wife of Joseph, and the Mother of Jesus. I think the catholic church has a rich history that you probably can’t find elsewhere. I think that some traditions have been passed down to us from the Apostles, and others I’m not so sure about. Maybe that makes me a cafeteria catholic, as some like to call it, or maybe it makes me a thinking catholic, a moniker I obviously prefer, but either way I’m am servant of Jesus Christ and I have a feeling thqat you are too!
V
Vico
Guest
John1, I am suprised to read “I don’t really believe that Mary plays any part in our salvation, at least none that the any of the Apostles mentioned.”
Mary’s role is clearly described in the scriptures, as incarnation was chosed by God to be the means to our salvation. In addition to giving birth to Our Savior, The Blessed Virgin Mary continues to be the handmaid of Our Lord. And even since her assumption (dormition) she continues as our loving intercessor, praying for us, as are the others in the communion of saints.
Mary’s role is clearly described in the scriptures, as incarnation was chosed by God to be the means to our salvation. In addition to giving birth to Our Savior, The Blessed Virgin Mary continues to be the handmaid of Our Lord. And even since her assumption (dormition) she continues as our loving intercessor, praying for us, as are the others in the communion of saints.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, John 1
God blessHi Tom,
Forgive the delay in getting back with you … I’ll hopefully make amends with this post…
But, first I do have two personal questions for you … the Religion you identified in your bio was “Christian Catholic”. I am honestly not familiar with that term and would appreciate it if you would please tell me what it means.
Secondly, you have taken the name “John 1” and, I am guessng that this may have something to do with an appreciation for the Beloved Disciple", writer of the 4th Gospel and of other books in the NT. If so, you are aware of John presence at the foot of the Cross when Christ told John to behold his Mother and for Mary to behold her son. This is not usually considered an act based on providing new living accommodations for the widow Mary who is watching her Son die. It is usually considered that John took our place and that Mary is indeed our Mother. Considering her role at resolving a major problem at the Marriage Feast of Canna - I would think that quite a number of people would think that Mary still has influence with her Son. What do you think?
Thank you. Now, on to the task at hand.
The post from Vico responding to yours to me was excellent… and really do wish you would repond to his comments. After that (or, in the same response, if you wish) please resond to the following:
In response to post #265, I agree that showing respect to the mother of Jesus is in every Christians best interest. I don’t really believe that Mary plays any part in our salvation, at least none that the any of the Apostles mentioned. **Vico provide you with an excellent response. God chose to take on the form of a slave for us - and to do this - He chose Mary. While we do not know when Jesus’ Foster Father, Joseph, died, the focus has been that Mary, as a Jewish Mother was very influential in the rearing of her Son. To effectively dismiss what took place for the 30-years of Jesus’ Private Life and only look at His Public Life is to dismiss quite a lot. **
In fact it seems that Jesus is the only Mediator between God and men, considering what is written in 1 Timothy 2:5 and also what is written in Hebrews 7:25, but really I think that’s for another discussion. **We really do need to quite clear about this - Jesus is the Son of God (and Son of Mary) and Jesus (and not Mary) died for our sins. “He who sees the Son sees the Father…” and it was Jesus’ perfect sacrifice that opened the Gates of Heaven for us. But, you know, while I am sure there are some who are not in some way thinking of pleasing their Mothers - most have at least working relations with their Mothers - so that when one listens to their Mothers one tries to accommodate them. If you look at many statues of Mary - she is holding the Infant Jesus in such a way that her attenion is on her Son and our attention is now drawn to Jesus - and not to Mary. There is no competition for attention - worship goes to God - and Mary is not god or a goddess. **
In Romans 8 it says that the Spirit himself intercedes for us, but again that’s for another discussion. As far as whether or not Mary remained a Virgin after the birth of Jesus, I don’t see as a stumbling point because I respect Mary whether she was or she wasn’t.
** This seems to be almost an ambivalent view of what is going on. Considering the nature of this thread, makes me wonder why you did not develop a position besides “benign” indifference. **
Mary was a servant of God, ** Here is where you appear to not really appreciate Mary’s role. Mary was the most perfect follower of Christ - she was obedient to God’s command even before Christ took flesh. She was the very first CHRISTian - and she followed the promptings of God from her obedient “Fiat” to accepting John as her son as her own Son was dying. She is not just, “one of the girls” who happened to be mentioned in the Gospels. **and the wife of Joseph, and the Mother of Jesus. I think the catholic church has a rich history that you probably can’t find elsewhere.
I think that some traditions have been passed down to us from the Apostles, and others I’m not so sure about. ** Judge for yourself the devise disunity that is present in Protestant chruches who claim SS - and have no grounding in Apostolic Tradition. Look and see - these places are filled with the traditions of men, devised by disgrunteled men who refused to acknowledge that Christ established His Church (and that would be the Catholic Church) on sinful and weak Peter. **
Maybe that makes me a cafeteria catholic, as some like to call it, or maybe it makes me a thinking catholic, a moniker I obviously prefer, ** Don’t confuse the two. We are all to be Thinking Catholics - God gave us brains for a reason. The challenge here, “Thinker” is that you can not think your way through the mystries of our Faith. You can not think that somehow if Christ had it do over again… (an expression humans often make…) He would have never chosen Peter! We have no idea what to think unless we are first guided by Faith - and this activity is not contrary to thinking - it just goes beyond it. **but either way I’m am servant of Jesus Christ and I have a feeling thqat you are too!
Z
zapaleda
Guest
In Greek, the word for brother is adelphos and sister is adelphe. This word is used in different contexts: of children of the same parents (Matt. 1:2; 14:3), descendants of parents (Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5), the Jews as a whole (Acts 3:17, 22), etc. Therefore, the term brother (and sister) can and does refer to the cousins of Jesus.
There is certainly merit in this argument, However, different contexts give different meanings to words. It is not legitimate to say that because a word has a wide scope of meaning, that you may then transfer any part of that range of meaning to any other text that uses the word. In other words, just because the word brother means fellow Jews or cousin in one place, does not mean it has the same meaning in another. Therefore, each verse should be looked at in context to see what it means.
Lets briefly analyze a couple of verses dealing with the brothers of Jesus.
Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”
Matthew 13:55 - “Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”
In both of these verses, if the brothers of Jesus are not brothers, but His cousins, then who is His mother and who is the carpenters father? In other words, mother here refers to Mary. The carpenter in Matt. 13:55, refers to Joseph. These are literal. Yet, the Catholic theologian will then stop there and say, "Though carpenters son refers to Joseph, and mother refers to Mary, brothers does not mean brothers, but “cousins.” This does not seem to be a legitimate assertion. You cannot simply switch contextual meanings in the middle of a sentence unless it is obviously required. The context is clear. This verse is speaking of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus brothers. The whole context is of familial relationship: father, mother, and brothers.
There is certainly merit in this argument, However, different contexts give different meanings to words. It is not legitimate to say that because a word has a wide scope of meaning, that you may then transfer any part of that range of meaning to any other text that uses the word. In other words, just because the word brother means fellow Jews or cousin in one place, does not mean it has the same meaning in another. Therefore, each verse should be looked at in context to see what it means.
Lets briefly analyze a couple of verses dealing with the brothers of Jesus.
Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”
Matthew 13:55 - “Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”
In both of these verses, if the brothers of Jesus are not brothers, but His cousins, then who is His mother and who is the carpenters father? In other words, mother here refers to Mary. The carpenter in Matt. 13:55, refers to Joseph. These are literal. Yet, the Catholic theologian will then stop there and say, "Though carpenters son refers to Joseph, and mother refers to Mary, brothers does not mean brothers, but “cousins.” This does not seem to be a legitimate assertion. You cannot simply switch contextual meanings in the middle of a sentence unless it is obviously required. The context is clear. This verse is speaking of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus brothers. The whole context is of familial relationship: father, mother, and brothers.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Zapaleda,
Interesting approach. Let me try my hand at it.
While there are many issues that perplex us in the 21st Century that were never an issue in the 1st Century, we really need to see not only what was said (what was written that we now have today) and was was understood back then when it was said.
How many ways are there of saying the same thing by changing tone, providing a physical gesture, a raised of lower eye brow, a look, etc. Have you notice the almost total lack of statements that describe how something was said - only what was said? Writers constantly address this and most have devised ways for their readers to understand what and how their characters say something. This was not the style for the Gospel writers.
Lacking this - we need to get as close to the source as we can - and that would be the Early Church Fathers. Here is a link that may help resolve this question you have posed: catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp
Interesting approach. Let me try my hand at it.
While there are many issues that perplex us in the 21st Century that were never an issue in the 1st Century, we really need to see not only what was said (what was written that we now have today) and was was understood back then when it was said.
How many ways are there of saying the same thing by changing tone, providing a physical gesture, a raised of lower eye brow, a look, etc. Have you notice the almost total lack of statements that describe how something was said - only what was said? Writers constantly address this and most have devised ways for their readers to understand what and how their characters say something. This was not the style for the Gospel writers.
Lacking this - we need to get as close to the source as we can - and that would be the Early Church Fathers. Here is a link that may help resolve this question you have posed: catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp
God bless,
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
Virgin - biological or spiritual?
There is no mention in the Scripture of Jesus eating, drinking, urinating or defaecating.
If he was fully human these must have taken place.
There is no mention of Mary having sex with Joseph. She may not have done. Because it is not written it does not mean it did not take place. Does our understanding reflect our view of women, our view of sex?
There is no mention in the Scripture of Jesus eating, drinking, urinating or defaecating.
If he was fully human these must have taken place.
There is no mention of Mary having sex with Joseph. She may not have done. Because it is not written it does not mean it did not take place. Does our understanding reflect our view of women, our view of sex?
P
panevino
Guest
Writtings of papias around 115 to 140 list the ‘brothers’ as cousins
" Irenæus makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following words: Now testimony is borne to these things in writing by Papias, an ancient man, who was a hearer of John, and a friend of Polycarp, in the fourth of his books; for five books were composed by him. "
newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm
papias wrote down the following family tree
(1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4.) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord’s. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord’s. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.
X
(1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4.) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord’s. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord’s. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.
" Irenæus makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following words: Now testimony is borne to these things in writing by Papias, an ancient man, who was a hearer of John, and a friend of Polycarp, in the fourth of his books; for five books were composed by him. "
newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm
papias wrote down the following family tree
(1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4.) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord’s. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord’s. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.
X
(1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4.) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord’s. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord’s. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Kevin,
My understanding is that Mary remained a bilogical virgin throughout her life. I am not sure what is meant by a spiritual virgin.
Your transition from written accounts of personal waste removal to Mary having had sex with Joseph is intriguing - is this what you meant about our view of sex?
As a believing Catholic, we hold as a matter of Faith that Mary is ever virgin. And, that means that while, as a human she had to relieve herself of her own waste, she was a virgin at the time of the Annunication, remained a virgin after the birth of Christ and remained a virgin until her death. Here is a link you may find of interest: catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp
God bless
My understanding is that Mary remained a bilogical virgin throughout her life. I am not sure what is meant by a spiritual virgin.
Basically, you just have to sit back and pause for a moment. There are some items that are only mentioned infrequently - and yes, Jesus did eat and drink and this is recorded (the Last Supper is a pretty good example). As for Him removing waste, no this is not recorded. Come to think of it, this common topic is not usually recorded even in today’s literature. What does this prove? Probably, that most people do not write about relieving one’s self of waste - not that this does not happen.
Your transition from written accounts of personal waste removal to Mary having had sex with Joseph is intriguing - is this what you meant about our view of sex?
As a believing Catholic, we hold as a matter of Faith that Mary is ever virgin. And, that means that while, as a human she had to relieve herself of her own waste, she was a virgin at the time of the Annunication, remained a virgin after the birth of Christ and remained a virgin until her death. Here is a link you may find of interest: catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp
God bless
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
‘Spiritual virgin’ - one untainted by sin.
Sex is part of life.
Ever-virgin. Yes, but what does it mean? Is it referring to sex ?
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Kevin,
Yes, having sex is an optional part of life for some people.
Mary was very much alive but remained a physical vrigin throughout her life.
But, you know what, we are not called to believe FACTS. Our mission in this area is really much more straight forward. If you believe Christ is God and that Christ built His Church (and that would be the Catholic Church) on Peter, you are off to a good start. The next item is that Christ promised that His Church would not make any mistake when it came to Faith or Morals. Now, if all that is firmly in place, we can advance that the Catholic Church declared Mary, the Mother of God to have never had sex with any man and to be a physical virgin throughout her life. So, if you believe Christ - you can believe His Church.
Now, did THAT answer your quesiton?
God bless
Yes, having sex is an optional part of life for some people.
Mary was very much alive but remained a physical vrigin throughout her life.
Did that answer your question? No? Hmmmmmmm … let’s see… what else is there? There are no OB/GYN records to review - and, I am guessing that this type of objective and timely medical documentation is what we would need as a matter of FACT. St. Joseph is not recorded as having said much and none of the topics were about his wife’s virginity. Jesus is not recorded as having mentioned His Mother’s physical virginity. And, that is the immediate family. I am not sure under what circumstances that this would come up as a topic of discussion with the Apostles. And, we just keep on getting farther and farther away from what would be considered objective FACT.
But, you know what, we are not called to believe FACTS. Our mission in this area is really much more straight forward. If you believe Christ is God and that Christ built His Church (and that would be the Catholic Church) on Peter, you are off to a good start. The next item is that Christ promised that His Church would not make any mistake when it came to Faith or Morals. Now, if all that is firmly in place, we can advance that the Catholic Church declared Mary, the Mother of God to have never had sex with any man and to be a physical virgin throughout her life. So, if you believe Christ - you can believe His Church.
Now, did THAT answer your quesiton?
God bless
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
NO
It troubles me that “we (as Catholics) are not called to believe FACTS” (It leaves the gate wide open.)
As to Mary’s physical virginity the answer is we will never know.
This does not make her any less perpetual virgin.
A belief is not affirmed as true by stating “because I want to believe it”
The moon is not made of cream cheese because I think it’s a good idea.
In Bibles I’ve read and in the Catholic Church to which I belong Christ never said anything about his Mother’s sex life (maybe you’re reading from a new translation.)
What has Faith and Morals to do with sex?
S
Steven_John
Guest
Hi,
does any of the books ever make reference to cousins in a way we know they are cousins?
does any of the books ever make reference to cousins in a way we know they are cousins?
P
panevino
Guest
thought I’d add some thoughts, i’ve posted this before but did not get much of a response
36If a man thinks he is not behaving properly toward his virgin,[t] and if his passion is so strong that he feels he ought to marry her, let him do what he wants; he isn’t sinning. Let them get married. 37However, if a man stands firm in his resolve, feels no necessity, and has made up his mind to keep her a virgin, he will be acting appropriately. 38So then the man who marries the virgin acts appropriately, but the man who refrains from marriage does even better. 1 Corinthians 7:36 ISV
the virgin has the following footnote
[t] 7:36 I.e. virgin fiancée, but possibly virgin daughter
I noticed that a similar footnote is also in the NIV
NIV has it as "…If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to…
of course it would not of been a sin for them to of had sex.
the above verse appears to show that it is biblical to ‘resolve’ … to “keep her a virgin…”
obviously joseph had ‘resolved’ to ‘keep her a virgin’ before the birth,
other verses say clearly this can be done for the sake of the kingdom…(matt 19:12, Luke 18:28, 1 cor 7:7, 1 cor 7:32 & Ex19:14)
given joseph was told that mary was giving birth to a son of the the holy ghost (matt1:20) his ‘resolve’ would have been magnified.
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins"
that the child was the son of the most high/of the holy ghost.
It is pretty clear to me that given this biblical ‘resolve’ and the known signifigance of the child, that this couple, would of continued in thier ‘resolve’. imagine the responsibility they would of felt.
I understand protestant questions about no sex in a marriage is abnormal. but this is a unique couple, in a very unique situation, who were both very devout believers in God.
also if you consider the way jews did not/could not enter the tabernacle/holy of holies where god appeared, I think joseph would also of understood the significance of the son being within Mary.
I also find the papias writtings pretty good support, refer posthttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5759356&postcount=289
J
John1
Guest
Hi tqualey,
For a bother in Christ,I will try to fulfill your wish.
First, in response to Vico’s post, I’m in agreement that God chose Mary to give birth and to raise Jesus along with Joseph. I don’t think that God chose Mary as “the means to our Salvation”. Now, as to dismissing anything about any part of the life of Jesus, I most certainly do not! This goes to the point that I’ve made before, just because I don’t think it is really important whether or not Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus, in no way diminishes the respect the I have for her as the mother and parent of our Lord and Savior. Her role, and Joshep’s role as the parents that raised Jesus had to be awesome!
Next, I agree with you that Mary probably holds a special place in the heart of Jesus, and that when she prays/asks for anything Jesus will accomodate her.
Next, I do take a position, I doesn’t make a difference to me whether she remained a virgin or not, because I respect Mary as being blessed by God and the mother of our Lord and Savior. I don’t think that you can positively prove or disprove her perpetual virginity from anything in Scripture.
Next, I do appreciate Mary’s God given role and her obedience to God. I think I’ve already covered that, so there’s no sense in going over it again.
Next, I don’t neccessarily believe all of the traditions taught by the Catholic Church, even though I’m a member of the Catholic Church. As far as speaking for what every protestant church believes or does not believe, I cannot render an opinion because I don’t know. I do know that if any church that follows the bible, can’t help but follow at least some of the traditions handed down from the Apostles, as some are spelled out in Scripture.However, what does the views of theprotestant churches have to do with the original point of the thread? By the way, there’s a lot of disunity inside the Catholic Church? The polls said that almost half of the Catholics in the US voted for Obama! (not going there…ha ha!)
Lastly, I think that as Christian we all have the ability to receive the Holy Spirit, as promised, and to be led by the Holy Spirit. With that said, I also believe that we have the mind of Christ. I don’t believe that we always follow the leading of the Holy Spirit because we also have a carnal nature. Perhaps some people are beter at following the Holy Spirit than others, but I believe that Christians have to go through a “growing” process as they persevere in their faith in Christ. I don’t think that Jesus made any mistakes, or wishes that he had not chosen any of His Apostles. I didn’t mean to infer that you or anyone else is not a “thinking Christian”. For me, when faced with what appears to be a contradiction in what is being taught by men, and what is clearly being stated in Scripture, then I have to pray for guidence from the Holy Spirit and then to research the topic more throughly.
Your wish has been granted, now back to the thread!
C
choy
Guest
just ask the question, WWJD (what would Joseph do?)
you’re bride (my understanding that being betrothed meant they were already in the process of getting married but haven’t reach that time that they will co-habit and thus can engage in intimacy, from what i read about customs during their time) has just conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. you’re doubtful this is true but angels start appearing in your dreams telling you otherwise. finally your wife gives birth to a son just as the angels have told you and some unexplained phenomena surrounded the birth. star brighter than usual, 3 men who may or may not be kings came from nowhere bearing gifts, shepherds came praising the child, angels singing in praise in the heavens. at this point its pretty clear in your mind the child is the Son of God as the angel have told you.
so, knowing that your wife just gave birth to the Son of God, would you still have the appetite or the urge to engage your wife in intimacy? even ever?
you’re bride (my understanding that being betrothed meant they were already in the process of getting married but haven’t reach that time that they will co-habit and thus can engage in intimacy, from what i read about customs during their time) has just conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. you’re doubtful this is true but angels start appearing in your dreams telling you otherwise. finally your wife gives birth to a son just as the angels have told you and some unexplained phenomena surrounded the birth. star brighter than usual, 3 men who may or may not be kings came from nowhere bearing gifts, shepherds came praising the child, angels singing in praise in the heavens. at this point its pretty clear in your mind the child is the Son of God as the angel have told you.
so, knowing that your wife just gave birth to the Son of God, would you still have the appetite or the urge to engage your wife in intimacy? even ever?
J
John1
Guest
Sure, unless I viewed intimacy between a man and his wife as something sinful, or if I had been told by God not to do so.
C
choy
Guest
really? i doubt if you were in that situation that you will
it isn’t about sex being sinful. its just that would you think you’re worthy of a woman who just gave birth to your savior? knowing that God’s hand was in all of this?
its not about it being a sin or not, but respect. i’m just going by common sense here.
it isn’t about sex being sinful. its just that would you think you’re worthy of a woman who just gave birth to your savior? knowing that God’s hand was in all of this?
its not about it being a sin or not, but respect. i’m just going by common sense here.
- Status