In fact, you could not accept such authority. If you did, you would have to become Catholic!
I commend you you stick to your script.In fact, you could not accept such authority. If you did, you would have to become Catholic!
But in fact, whenever you defer to Scripture, you honor that authority, because without it, you would not have a Bible.
That same authority that gave you the Bible gave Mary, the Mother of God, the title “Theotokos”.
Where is it recorded that Mary took a vow of virginity? Where is it is recorded that God asked it of her.
actually it is recorded. and please someone correct me if i am wrong. im using the douay rheims translation for this. ok dokimas, look at luke 1:34 and Mary said to the angel “how can this be done, because i know NOT man?” the way the phrase is written is important, because it in it she apparently is refering to a vow, previously made. i believe guanophore can explain this better if he wishes. but i think the Blessed Mother, had already taken oaths to life long virginity.
Well thats what DoKiams does you never know what thread he is on , one day its eating meat on Firday and the Eucharist the next, that why it is so hard to keep up with. I have been trying to understant him for three days and still do not know what he is talking about
I am not aware that any of the persons in history taking such vows have any record of “God asking it of” them. Paul was a celibate, and though the NT is repleat with his writngs, he never mentions “God asking”. Are you suggesting that one might only take such a vow if God “asked” them to do so?
You know what I’ve always found to be strange? Such a disposition is grounds for an annulment in the RCC. So in the eyes of the church, one could conclude that Mary and Joseph were never truly married if she never intended to consummate the marriage.
They were under the Law of Moses. And if Mary made a vow of celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom, and Joseph agreed to it, then they were both bound to it under the Law of Moses (Num. 30:3-8). God bless.
Yes, our culture is quite different. In ancient Hebrew culture, as we see in Arab cultures today, a woman was considered property,and could not be unaccompanied. She was always in the care of her father, brother, or other male relative. The only women who were not so guarded were prostitutes.
Yes but in the current Roman Catholic Church teaching such a vow of celibacy is inconsistent with the mutual giving of oneself to spouses. I remember the priest saying that if we didn’t intend to have children our marriage would be invalid. I’m simply pointing out that if its applies to my wife and I why not Mary and Joseph?
Because God knows the end from the beginning.
Okay but still, Mary and Joseph’s marriage would still be considered invalid because it lacked proper intention according to the teaching of Rome, would it not?Because God knows the end from the beginning.
Under the Law of Christ, yes. But God wanted the mother of His Son to be a pure Virgin, who had dedicated her whole life to serving His Kingdom. But God could not have His Son growing up in a fatherless home, so He put this provision in the Law of Moses so that Joseph and Mary could have a celibate “marriage”. But I agree with St. Jerome, who did not believe that Joseph and Mary actually ever got married, but remained legally betrothed.
They weren’t Roman Catholic?
If a man or a woman today took vows to be a monk or a nun, then decided to enter into a marriage (I can’t imagine why this might happen) and they both agreed to remain celibate, then yes, it would not be considered a valid marriage. The lifestyle of celibacy by definition, precludes the marital embrace.
actually it is recorded. and please someone correct me if i am wrong. im using the douay rheims translation for this. ok dokimas, look at luke 1:34 and Mary said to the angel “how can this be done, because i know NOT man?” the way the phrase is written is important, because it in it she apparently is refering to a vow, previously made. i believe guanophore can explain this better if he wishes. but i think the Blessed Mother, had already taken oaths to life long virginity.
No, that is only if the husband opposes it, which means that God had not called her to celibacy. So it was a “thoughtless utterance”.
Well, first of all, YLT has the literal word for word: “seeing a husband I do not know.” That is, without the euphemism, “a husband I do not have sexual relations with” - a platonic husband, under the Law of Moses. It makes no sense to think otherwise. There was no reason for Mary to even be confused about it if they were planning on a typical marriage, since the angel said, “You will be with child” - future tense. So Mary was referring to the future when she said, “seeing a husband I do not know.” God bless.
You do have to read a lot into this to get your understanding. Have you really looked into a Jewish betrothal?
actually i have. from the time of moses, betrothel has taken on several forms. it used to be that a young man would take a young woman. give her a promisary token. perhaps a piece of jewelry of some kind, then take her to his tent and sleep with her. they were then betrothed. if you look at the law of moses such things were not forbidden in the prohibited sexual practices. it was later that the practice was discontinued. after the authority God had set up on earth declared it to be wrong. also it was the authority God set up, at the time. the jewish priest who discontinued poligamy. again nothing wrong with it in scriptures. ( sola scriptura friends. lol!) but the authority he set up at the time declared it to be discontinued. so betrothal in jewish custom, has changed over the millenia. and there is also secular studies by authors such as christopher knight and michael baigent who contend Mary had taken vows to remain a virgin. also martin luther, john calvin ,and i believe zwinglie never doubted her lifelong virginity. worth checking out.
making your opinion in - - - - - - -.