Question About Mary ??

  • Thread starter Thread starter partridge
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LilyM said:
Point being if she was engaged to be married - AND intending on having a normal sexual marriage - she would be expecting to be engaging in sexual behaviour pretty darn soon. Her virginity wouldn’t be an issue, she’d be planning on losing it soon.

Note the angel didn’t say WHEN she was going to have the child, nor did he say its conception wouldn’t be a natural one. Not until Mary herself raised the issue of her virginity.

Look, I’m a woman, so trust me. If I was a few months shy of being married, anticipating having sex with my husband, and was told I was going to have a child, whether son of God or no, I’d be thinking ‘of course! Married women have babies, it’s the normal result of marriage!’ I may say ‘how will this child be son of God’, but not ‘how will I conceive a child because I’m a virgin’.

A woman who’s about to be married KNOWS she’s not going to stay a virgin for long in the normal course of things, so wouldn’t raise the question - except if she’s planning on STAYING a virgin.

Hope that makes sense to you now.
Click to expand...
*I am sorry again, but your post still has me confused. Mary’s concern was how is it possible for me to conceive seeing I have not known a man( or have had sex). She and Joseph were engaged to be married so it is sensible for that godly woman to have such a concern.

It makes absolute sense to me that a virgin would ask how can this be seeing I am a virgin, not that I plan on remaining one…😃 *
 
jmcrae said:
All that remained was for her to move in with Joseph, which she could do at any time. It wasn’t like a modern engagement of months or even years - once betrothed, the ceremonial aspect was finished, and there was only the practical aspect of moving her belongings over to her husband’s house. The wedding had already taken place. (And yet, they had not consummated the marriage on the wedding night. She was still a virgin, even though she could start having sex any time she wanted to.)

Sorry, I have never heard of a new bride wondering how she will get pregnant. If this were a normal marriage, she would have assumed that her husband would impregnate her.

*I would understand completely if the concern was an issue of having or not having sex. I think it is ludicrous for one to contemplate the question of how to get pregnant when the issue is how because I have not had sex *

Because of the fact that he knew he wasn’t the one who got her pregnant.

His natural assumption would be that another man has claimed her for his wife. This other man would be prepared to kill Joseph to get Mary, if Joseph chooses to stand in his way. That’s why he would have reason to fear taking Mary into his home - because taking her into his home would be a signal to his rival that he wants to have a physical contest for her favour.

Is it at all possible that he also may have thought that Mary fornicated. Where is the indication that Joseph was afraid to take Mary into his home or is that more speculation?

This means that he went ahead and moved her belongings into his house.
Click to expand...
 
partridge said:
I would like to hear how one can say Mary had perpetual virginity based on scripture ……

Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

This obviously is a response from Mary to the angel Gabriel after hearing that she would give birth knowing that she had not been sexually active with Joseph or any other man. Of the four definitions of the original Greek word for “know”, all have the idea of knowledge except one that has the idea of a Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse.

Matthew 1:24-25 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Once again the same root word “know” with the same implication for the definition. The implication of the sentence is that he did not have intercourse with her “till she had brought forth her firstborn son”.

Please give me your opinions !!

Thanks, Partridge
Click to expand...
Very good question…😃 *
 
Priest34 said:
I am sorry again, but your post still has me confused. Mary’s concern was how is it possible for me to conceive seeing I have not known a man( or have had sex). She and Joseph were engaged to be married so it is sensible for that godly woman to have such a concern.

The point is, they were not engaged in the same sense we use the word today.

In their tradition of marriage and betrothal the wedding had already happened. It would not have been wrong, immoral, or even unusual for couples in this stage to be having sex. Betrothal meant all the paper work and ceremony was done and all that was left was for her to move in.

Priest34;2384333 said:
*It makes absolute sense to me that a virgin would ask how can this be seeing I am a virgin, not that I plan on remaining one…😃 *
Click to expand...
Her reply would make no since if she was not going to remain a virgin. Gabriel did not say she was going to get pregnant that day, or that minute, just at some point in the future. If she was planning on having marital relations with Joseph (which under their law they could already be doing) she would not have asked this.
Click to expand...
 
The “till” question has been discussed ad nauseam already in this thread. By bring it up yet again I’m beginning to think your just another forum troll out to bait and not really looking for answers.

There are many place in the bible where the word “till” means up to that point and also after. If you even look back in the pages of this very thread you will easily find the verses and a more detailed answer to that rather poor attempt at disputing Mary perpetual virginity.
 
LilyM said:
PRECISELY!!! If Mary were thinking of having sex with Joseph she wouldn’t say that she ‘knew not a man’ - she DID know, or would very soon know (if it were a sexual marriage), a man - her husband! *
What was the point of the above?*

You see she didn’t know that it would be a virgin birth - she thought a man would be the father, which is why she asked! And yet she had her betrothed already there - surely Joseph would be the man, IF she was planning on sexual relations with him! So why ask the question even?
Click to expand...
What sense does the above make also
 
LilyM said:
OK OK people, it seems fairly clear that English (or at least American English, which isn’t at all the same thing) isn’t Priest’s first language, so don’t be hard on him.
Click to expand...
**Please be hard on me, it is a blessing and english is my first language unlike Catholicism which is, well what number of religion would it be…😃 **
 
LJN21 said:
The “till” question has been discussed ad nauseam already in this thread. By bring it up yet again I’m beginning to think your just another forum troll out to bait and not really looking for answers.

There are many place in the bible where the word “till” means up to that point and also after. If you even look back in the pages of this very thread you will easily find the verses and a more detailed answer to that rather poor attempt at disputing Mary perpetual virginity.
Click to expand...
Catholics however wish to use the latter, correct(after)
 
LJN21 said:
The point is, they were not engaged in the same sense we use the word today.

In their tradition of marriage and betrothal the wedding had already happened. It would not have been wrong, immoral, or even unusual for couples in this stage to be having sex. Betrothal meant all the paper work and ceremony was done and all that was left was for her to move in.

Her reply would make no since if she was not going to remain a virgin. Gabriel did not say she was going to get pregnant that day, or that minute, just at some point in the future. If she was planning on having marital relations with Joseph (which under their law they could already be doing) she would not have asked this.
Click to expand...
Now the above makes no sense at all to me. Lady gets married but wants to remain a virgin…hmmmmm
 
Priest34 said:
*I am sorry again, but your post still has me confused. Mary’s concern was how is it possible for me to conceive seeing I have not known a man( or have had sex). She and Joseph were engaged to be married so it is sensible for that godly woman to have such a concern.

It makes absolute sense to me that a virgin would ask how can this be seeing I am a virgin, not that I plan on remaining one…😃 *
Click to expand...
The angel was not telling her that she was already pregnant. (She wasn’t - not at that point.)

He was telling her that she would some day become pregnant, *in the future. *

The point that people are trying to get across is that most young brides don’t need a heavenly visitation to let them know that they are going to become pregnant some day in the future.

Mary’s response, “How will this happen, since I know not a man?” indicates that she had not been planning to have sex with Joseph, or anyone else. The future that she has planned for herself does not include pregnancy.
 
jmcrae said:
The angel was not telling her that she was already pregnant. (She wasn’t - not at that point.)

He was telling her that she would some day become pregnant, *in the future. *

The point that people are trying to get across is that most young brides don’t need a heavenly visitation to let them know that they are going to become pregnant some day in the future.

Mary’s response, “How will this happen, since I know not a man?” indicates that she had not been planning to have sex with Joseph, or anyone else. The future that she has planned for herself does not include pregnancy.
Click to expand...
I have a serious question that I don’t understand. If Mary and Joseph never had marital sexual relations, then they were Not married in the eyes of the church. Is that Correct? My understanding is that in order to have a valid marriage it Must be consummated? Please let me know. Thanks!
 
Priest34 said:
Now the above makes no sense at all to me. Lady gets married but wants to remain a virgin…hmmmmm
Click to expand...
Actually, it makes perfect sense.

Joseph took her into his home under the protection of marriage in order to preserve her vow of virginity, since she was no longer allowed to remain at the Temple, now that she was of marriageable age. If people thought she was already married, they would not force her into a marriage that she didn’t want.

Remember, back then, women were often regarded as property. Her desire to remain a virgin all her life would not have been understood by others around her, and, since her parents were elderly, they would not be around to protect her all of her life.
 
sosayi1960 said:
I have a serious question that I don’t understand. If Mary and Joseph never had marital sexual relations, then they were Not married in the eyes of the church. Is that Correct? My understanding is that in order to have a valid marriage it Must be consummated? Please let me know. Thanks!
Click to expand...
First, they weren’t Catholic. The laws of the Catholic Church were not yet in effect.

Secondly, the means by which Jews of that era lived lives of celibacy was simply by entering into marriage with likeminded persons. We see many examples of this with the Nazarites and the Essenes.

The Jews had no monasteries or convents, and a single woman living alone in that part of the world would (and today still would be, in that part of the world) have been a target for thieves and worse.

Even in the Catholic Church, however, there is provision for something called a “Josephite marriage” where the parties come to live together, but take vows of celibacy within the marriage. This is extremely rare, of course, since the majority of those who take vows of celibacy enter convents or monasteries, or (in safer parts of the world) simply live the single life.
 
sosayi1960 said:
I have a serious question that I don’t understand. If Mary and Joseph never had marital sexual relations, then they were Not married in the eyes of the church. Is that Correct? My understanding is that in order to have a valid marriage it Must be consummated? Please let me know. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Canon 1061: “A valid marriage between baptised persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated…”

Also its worth while to point out this was just a natural marriage not a sacramental marriage.
 
Also its worth while to point out this was just a natural marriage not a sacramental marriage.
Click to expand...
Could you explain why that is?

(As an aside, I just logged on to that DarwinFish site, and wow, is he crazy. I read upthread that he’s banned? Good. His site scares me.)
 
twosweetgirls said:
Could you explain why that is?

(As an aside, I just logged on to that DarwinFish site, and wow, is he crazy. I read upthread that he’s banned? Good. His site scares me.)
Click to expand...
Basically what jmcrae said, since Mary and Joseph weren’t Catholic so there are a lot of rules that don’t apply. They had a valid natural marriage. Jesus had not been born yet so marriage had not been raised to a Sacrament.

DarwinFish site? I must have missed that.

Edit: I found it … that’s some messed up stuff. Reminds me of a Baptist church that picks fallen soldiers funerals with signs like “God kills Soldiers” and “God Hates Gays”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top