See, this is what makes no sense. If you are planning on having sex, and you’re told you will get pregnant, how would that news be “just as surprising” as it would be if you were not planning on having sex? “How can that be?” is not the reaction of someone who knows exactly how that can be.
Actually your comment lacks common sense.
Yet it is(This is not intended as a personal attack).
What you ignore is that she is married so the question is illogical. Logically she would assume that she and Joseph would be having a baby after all he was her husband. So logically speaking she should have assumed that her husband would assume his privileges as a husband. Just because they weren’t having sex why would she assume this to be a continuing condition. You see you aren’t using common sense.
Because she was a married woman so why would she ask it.
Maybe but she wouldn’t ask how?
I agree.
.
Yep it is strange that she didn’t blurt out. Joseph and I will have a baby since she was married. If you were to tell an engaged woman she would have a baby, she wouldn’t say but I don’t have sex. She would assume that the baby would be with her future husband. But we don’t have that scenario. We have a married woman being told she would have a baby.
Agreed they were in the first part of marriage where they did not live together.
Sorry but this makes no sense.
Shame on you. It is because you do not follow God that you make false accusations. It is clear in scripture that Jesus established an authority of His Church which in the pride of man you have rejected.It is illogical to try and explain away the revealed word of the Infallible God with vain imaginationings of fallible man… Let God be true and every man a liar.
Hi,
. The thrust of what i attempted to communicate has maybe been lost due to my wording!Hi
My reply was meant as a refutation of your post, not something that was aimed at you personally, (my reply would have been the same no matter who made the post), hence my saying this is not a personal attack!
why would she not assume this to be a continuing condition and not be surprised to be pregnant in this instance, knowing sex hadnt taken place?? Was IVF and similar practices common and not surprising in biblical times?? Your own quote does not take into account the custom of the day, nor bear the fruit of logic and common sense. (which you do do at various point but not all).The angel Gabriel did not tell her, “You’re pregnant.” He needed her consent before God could become incarnate in her womb. Rather, he told her:
Hardly something to be questioned by a young woman who was betrothed and awaiting the physical consummation of her marriage.
How so. Because you don’t use the quote function it is really hard to follow your reasoning.Hi
The problem here is that all the angel said at this point is that she would conceive not how. It was only after she said she did not “know” man that the angel explained the miraculous component. If you would tell a male or female who was married that they were going to conceive what % do you think would answer but I don’t have sex?
No this does not explain. Yes they were in that part of the marriage that they didn’t have sex but what you don’t explain is why Mary wouldn’t have thought that the angel was referring to the second part of marriage. Mary would have been waiting for he husband to come and get her. The question than is why didn’t she assume that Joseph would be coming and she would then get pregnant. Your answer does not suffice.
As already stated, the Angel had not told her how it would accomplished until she asked her strange question.
aemcpa has answered this I do not see the need to repeat what he stated accurately and well.It was the fact she was pregnant at that point in time and no sex been engaged in, any woman would have found to be strange!
Remember to take the term “marriage” (betrothed,espoused), within the context of the custom of the day.
First of all where does it say that we are to use scripture only? You are being dishonest when you state there is no basis. You may state that you don’t see it but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. The question is strange with your interpretation but your prejudice will not allow you to see it or admit it.
If you did nto reject the word of God, than you would be Catholic.I do not reject the authority of the word of God, but rather seek to be guided by it, because i DO know God and seek in all ways to follow Him. Yes it is clear in scripture that the Lord established Authority 1Thess 5:12,13, (and many other places), which i humbly place my self under, yet i also would be like the Lord and the bereans, and search the scriptures daily to see if “IT IS WRITTEN”.
If this is my shame, then i gladly bear it
St. Louis Marie deMontfort spoke about this, as well. He taught that Mary was God’s gift to the Church to help it in later ages when we would need her the most. I’m paraphrasing his words, of course. She was the first church, the first disciple, his most faithful one, and the one who loved and obeyed even when she didn’t understand. She is the living image of what a Christian ought to be. When Scripture was written the Church was busy evangelizing and just trying to survive. But when it had become established it could take the time to explore Mary’s role more carefully. Indeed, the Marian teachings are more than mere piety, they are bulwarks against heresy and helps to us in our walk with Christ. To be miminalistic about Mary is to miss the mark theologically and to cut oneself off from one of the greatest treasures God has given to us.
WOW! What a statement of truth that I have never heard before. Thank you for your contribution.
Think i have it sussed now!Secondly, i now understand the thrust off your question in the light of your above comment.
I stated there is no Scriptural basis, where is the dishonesty in that?
I felt it was appropriate as the Lord would make reference to scripture in support of many, (not “all”, i retract “all”)(though i have never seen/read in the bible where his teachings had no scriptural basis) of his teachings, but never (that i am aware of), to the traditions of men, which posts on this thread have done.
You are of course correct, i was reading Matt 1,(where Joseph was going to put Mary away for being pregnant), that coupled with the late hour in Scotland, and my tired eyes and brain, i made an error,i should get into the habit of proof reading, but i am new at this type of thing,
thanks for highlighting it graciously ( wish my wife had the same mentality)!!!
Must admit i am ignorant of the teachings calling Mary the second Eve (even in my previous 25yrs as a professing RC)
That would have been an affront to His real brothers, for it is the DUTY of a son to honor and care for your parents in their old age.
If as a commonly held belief in RC tradition, that Christs brethren were Josephs children from a previous marriage, would not the care of Mary fall upon them? Would it not also mean that they failed to honour her?
By the same standard you have set forth, would not Jesus also know that Mary could " ask the father in law to allow her to have children with one of his sons"?
We do not believe that Jesus’ brethren were Joseph’s children, but Jesus’ cousins. There wasn’t any word for ‘cousin’ back then, so due to the closeness of the relation, brother/sister was a better word than relative, which, even today, sounds very cold and distant.
If St. Joseph himself were dead, I do think his father would have been long gone.
Mary had to be totally alone for Jesus to entrust her to John while she was still here on earth.The beloved disciple was supposed to represent all Christians. That is why he’s never named, although we know for sure that he’s John. John 19:27 encourages the Christian to accept Mary as his mother and to take her into his home.Peter himself was not present at the cross, but was rather denying Him, his brethren had rejected him, Psalm 69:8. Other than the woman, only John the beloved stood by. So Christ seeing this, entrusted the keeping of his mother to one who did not deny and desert Him and His mother at her time of need!!
Sound plausible?
Eve did not have concupiscence before the fall; neither did Mary. Concupiscence is not “the desire to sin” per se; the Catechism defines it thusly in paragraph 2515:Must admit i am ignorant of the teachings calling Mary the second Eve (even in my previous 25yrs as a professing RC)
So not sure how it relates to my implying that Mary,allegedly being free from original sin, would not keep her from the desire to sin?
Eve’s flesh did not rebel against her spirit, inclining her to sin; she made a wholly spiritual and rational decision to sin.
Firstly, let me apologise for not using the quote function properly, i am just getting used to the layout.
I am still learning so no worry. Most have trouble when they first start and even when we have been here awhile. :dancing:
This is the first time I have read something that made some kind of sense. Yes indeed it would be more than a traumatic event. However, us usually in such cases most would blurt out the truth as Mary does. I would also point out that the Angel does not seem to think it is a strange question for he answers her question. So even though you have made a good try to explain it, it doesn’t for if she was planning a normal marriage her truth would
Even though you say that you don’t find scripture that she remained ever virgin neither will you find scripture that says she didn’t. I would disagree that there is not other scripture besides this one. I would ask you to consider Samuel 6:6 Uzzah is killed for putting his hands on the ark. How could any many dare to touch the place where God dwelled. It is unthinkable to me that Joseph would dare approach where Jesus had been.
There is actually no scripture that supports that Mary did not remain a virgin. Now I want to make a statement here. Just because Scripture does not support that Mary had other children does not necessarily prove that she remained a virgin. Scripture does not support that Jesus had uterine brothers. You have already been provided the Scripture at the foot of the cross. There is also John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 -Jesus brothers are advising Him. In their culture, this would have been disrespectful for a younger brother but not for an older brother. In that culture, younger brothers didn’t offer advise to an older nor would they try to seize Him.
And yet we are left with that question.
Everything including Mary’s virginity points and tells us about Jesus. St. Ambrose of Milan wrote that Mary’s virginity was “so great an example of material virtue” because it demonstrated her total devotion to Jesus. In Mary, we see an example of the purity our own hearts must have in total dedication to God. Her virginity also tells us something about the Church, which, like Mary, is both mother to the faithful and “pure bride to her one husband” (2 Cor. 11:2)
Because there is.
Where does it say that it is?
That doesn’t say that all will be found in Scripture. In fact, Scripture says the opposite. Jesus didn’t say to go and write but go and preach. The Church did not come out of Scripture but Scripture came out of the Church.
The tradition of men I find you posting so there we are.
Thats o.k. I know it is more your ignorance than the truth.
Jesus establishes a Church. You reject that Church.
No but we embrace the fullness.
Not because you hold a different opinions but how you express that difference.Because i hold opinions not held by catholics, does not make me “anti catholic”, just as disagreeing with a gay lifestyle does not make me homophobic.