RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,187
US
✟1,441,679.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In what way is that obvious? It’s important to bear in mind when reading the gospels that they are very short accounts of a period covering 3 years or more, involving a lot of people and events. There’s no exploration of the ins and outs of every scene in terms of what the people involved felt, thought and said, most of it is summarised for the sake of brevity, because the important thing was getting the message across. That doesn’t mean Mary, or anyone else, didn’t think anything through or have a choice.

Not so much brevity as that the audience already understood the context.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,187
US
✟1,441,679.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I believe God knew she would be consenting, and that's why He chose her. I doubt He would have chosen someone who would object.

If she were a person who would object, she would have been the wrong person to approach.

When I was active duty, there were frequently tasks that were tough and unpleasant but would result in significant reward later for the person who accomplished it. I could consider my people and estimate pretty well who would be willing--as well as who would best excel and then best profit from the opportunity--and choose the right person.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
God knows our choice. Yet he allows us to say it. Mary was given an opportunity to say it, yet it was a yes before she said it. Do you understand?
Amen. Like for we who are disciples today - when we became followers of Yeshua, immersed inHim, we declared THOU ART MASTER at that time (and SAVIOR),
and ANYTHING HE tells us to do after that is expected to be done willingly, with joy and whole-heartedly, even unto suffering and death and loss of everything.

We said "YES MASTER!" , in grace by faith, His Gift, once for all time,
no matter what He tells us to DO, where to GO.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Times
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Perhaps but my responses are just based on the text. No consent was sought.
According to the text and customs of righteous followers of Yahweh,
she was already devoted to Yahweh, to serving Him faithfully all of her life,
more than anyone you know today.

Same with other followers of Yeshua in the New Testament - some or many were raised right also, and no lie was found in their lips, they would not willfully commit sin nor rebel against Yahweh nor against man.
They were called at times "blameless" before Yahweh (God), by Yahweh(His Judgment of their Righteousness and Faithfulness) not like the majority of people today all around, even with grace!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0

Thir7ySev3n

Psalm 139
Sep 13, 2009
672
417
32
✟58,397.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Why did Jesus say "come to me all you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest"? Why issue this wonderful invitation if none of us can actually come to Him at all? Why invite us in this way if He doesn't care if we do come to Him, because He's just some kind of puppet master?

All that you say about God's sovereignty and righteous judgement is absolutely true, however, Scripture is clear that human beings do have free will and are therefore also accountable before God as to how they exercise it.

Anyone who reads the OT can see how profoundly this is true. How often did Israel turn away from God, even after He brought them out of Egypt so mightily and miraculously?

And God, Who knows the end from the beginning, and Whose plans and purposes do come to pass exactly as He wills, Whose ways are perfect and just, somehow, and incomprehensibly, still so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.

He is both the Just and the Justifier of them that believe.

God actually does love us, and He is concerned for us, He desires that none should perish.

And Jesus Christ has shown us the love of God, that we can find rest in our Saviour. Jesus Christ, our Sabbath.

God does desire a personal relationship with us, His children. He is not a distant and impersonal God simply seeking to strike us down at the slightest provocation. Thanks be to Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour Who has reconciled us to the Father!

This reads more like a prepared generic response to a Calvinist than anything at all that I wrote. There is no incoherence between admitting both human free will and God's disregard for that will when it contravenes His own. That is to say, for example, Jonah is free to will not to go to Ninevah, but that doesn't require God to ask his consent, which He didn't. We are not asked about where we want to be born and when, of what ethnicity, with what gifts and deficits, etc. God simply imposes those constraints on us, and we are free to be grateful for God's wisdom or to despise it. That's the part that both Biblically and naturally we can apprehend God doesn't care about. He does as He wills, and allows us to have a competing will, but doesn't permit us to contravene it when He decrees that something will be done. For example: "it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment (Hebrews 9:27)."

How many neither want to die nor receive judgment? See where that gets them. How many want to have their own way to God? See where the Bible says they're headed. Where did Jonah not want to go? Where did he end up? Complain to God, "why did you make me this way?" You'll just kick against the goads.
 
Upvote 0

amariselle

Jesus Never Fails
Sep 28, 2004
6,648
4,194
The Great Northern Wilderness
✟60,500.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
This reads more like a prepared generic response to a Calvinist than anything at all that I wrote. There is no incoherence between admitting both human free will and God's disregard for that will when it contravenes His own. That is to say, for example, Jonah is free to will not to go to Ninevah, but that doesn't require God to ask his consent, which He didn't. We are not asked about where we want to be born and when, of what ethnicity, with what gifts and deficits, etc. God simply imposes those constraints on us, and we are free to be grateful for God's wisdom or to despise it. That's the part that both Biblically and naturally we can apprehend God doesn't care about. He does as He wills, and allows us to have a competing will, but doesn't permit us to contravene it when He decrees that something will be done. For example: "it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment (Hebrews 9:27)."

I didn't say our will "contravenes" God's. It absolutely does not. We are accountable for our choices and how we exercise our free will, however, because God in His infinite wisdom created us with the ability to choose Him.

And I never said otherwise. God is sovereign and just, He is also compassionate, merciful, forgiving, gracious and relational. Scripture calls us God's "children" for a reason.

And in Christ we are reconciled to the Father and can come boldly before the throne of Grace. So, we should not see God as distant and impersonal.

How many neither want to die nor receive judgment?

There is no longer any condemnation for those in Christ.

See where that gets them. How many want to have their own way to God? See where the Bible says they're headed.

Saved, born again believers are "headed" for eternity with God.

Where did Jonah not want to go? Where did he end up? Complain to God, "why did you make me this way?" You'll just kick against the goads.

Yes, we can (and likely all have) at one point or another complained against or questioned God. (Unless we're just being dishonest with ourselves.

Nothing changes the fact that He loved the world enough to send His only begotten Son, and that He desires that none should perish.

We should be careful to remember that while He is absolutely sovereign, Holy, righteous and just, He is also forgiving, slow to anger, compassionate and merciful to us in Jesus Christ.

And He is not distant, aloof or uncaring. As we know, in the Word become "flesh" Who dwelt among us, we have a Saviour who absolutely and completely understands our struggles. Who was tempted in every way, just as we are, and was yet without sin. Jesus Christ calls us to Himself, to rest in Him.

In the Gospel of our salvation, we rejoice in this Hope.

God bless.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,787
Pacific Northwest
✟728,236.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Of course Mary consented:

"And Mary said, 'Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.' And the angel departed from her." - Luke 1:38

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,787
Pacific Northwest
✟728,236.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Really? Do you have any documentation to back that assertion up?

Without a channel for celibacy (such as monasticism) women, by and large, had only one option in Protestant circles: Wives and mothers.

If you are aware of something otherwise, I wouldn't mind learning about it.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Foxfyre

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 1, 2017
1,484
831
New Mexico
✟233,566.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So tell me, did Mary get a say in being impregnated? Because sometimes that part of the story just reads like get gets told that she'll be getting pregnant now, and, well, sure, she does say later on, "Okay, let it be so," that part of her response seems pretty inconsequential given the fact that she's already been told that it's going to happen regardless.

Believe me, I have a burning desire to want Mary to have agency. She did say, "Let it be according to your word." I want to let her yes be yes! What an empowering story that one would be, and what a deep and meaningful testament to the trust Mary had in God! Being pregnant was even more dangerous then than it is today. To top it off, being unwed and pregnant? And all that traveling. God didn't put her in an easy position, that's for sure. But she trusted God. And goodness knows the good book needs a woman or two with agency!

Her "Let it be according to your word," doesn't feel like consent. It feels like the child who pretends to be asleep when her dad comes into her room at night because she knows there's nothing she can do to stop what he is about to do anyway... and even if she wanted to try, how would she even begin to say "no" when they are on such unequal playing fields; she doesn't have the language yet to describe what he is doing.

How much did Mary know of the OT God? I'm not sure I know a lot about her regarding what education she would have had? Did she know enough to know how the OT women got treated? Look at Hagar. She was raped, repeatedly, and later mistreated by the wife of the man who raped her. She ran away and what did God do? God said, "Go back to the place where you get hurt." Where women do come up in the OT, it's no secret that they are generally either "vessels" or they meet unpleasant ends (or maybe both!) Would Mary have felt like she had any power to say "no" to a God who the OT credits with some pretty... strong... punishments?

So what is there to take away from that passage that just seems to be Mary being taken advantage of/being reduced to a vessel. I get the whole theme of obedience and all but the annunciation bit itself really still eats at me.

Few of us give consent prior to being called or blessed by God. But the blessed among us acquiesce and/or give grateful thanks when it happens. As did Mary.

God sets the standards for us. It isn't the other way around.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Thir7ySev3n
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,477
18,456
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,462.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
I wasn't aware that Protestant women had fewer autonomous choices. Interesting. (Also, if one must have the choice of being a nun and entering a convent, there are Protestant orders, as I'm sure you're aware.)

There were no Protestant religious orders until the 19th century. The restoration of monasticism in a Protestant church happened in America, in the 19th century, by William Muhlenberg, a German convert to Episcopalianism and a priest who was allied with what later became known as Anglo-Catholicism, a religious movement among Anglicans which rejected much of the Protestant attitudes towards the Catholic past.

During the Carolignian reign in England prior to the Civil War, there was a house called Little Gilding where Christians lived a cloistered life of prayer together but it was harassed by Puritans and did not endure. With the exception of a few Lutherans in Germany who continued to live as monastics since the Reformation (all monks), Protestants were overwhelmingly opposed to monasticism. The state churches seized the property of monastic houses on trumped up charges of sodomy and corruption, spurned on by propaganda and ideology.

In any case, it's not as though Protestant women are forced to get married and have children.

They were forced to by their circumstances, if they wanted to have a good reputation and even in many cases, food to eat and shelter over their heads. Social welfare did not really exist back then as a right. To be a spinster or widow was a terrible curse, as a result, which is why those terms have such negative conotations even into the present day.

Worse, a single woman could be accused of witchcraft very easily. Protestants engaged in witch-hunts with more zeal even than Catholics. Luther saw evil spirits everywhere, as did the Reformed churches, perhaps even more. And vulnerable, unmarried women were the easiest scapegoats for anxieties about supernatural evil.

So your suggestion that Protestant women had options in their life just isn't true. Their destiny was to get married and have alot of kids, or face a harsh and brutal life, quite possibly a short one.

The death of monasticism did not just effect women of course, it took choices away from men. You started seeing what were called "Sturdy Beggars" in Tudor England. Poor men who previously could join a monastic order or offer to work for a monastery suddenly found a new "vocation", as a highwayman or robber. In addition, many of these same types of men also would later become pirates at sea, indeed, the English were notorious for piracy, government-sanctioned or not. And all so Henry VIII could fatten his purse with the ill-gotten riches taken from the Church.

Protestantism nearly destroyed the social fabric of many European countries, in many cases the only thing holding it together was the emergence of the new, powerful nation-state that ruled by force and national myth-making.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Kajiki
Upvote 0

Thir7ySev3n

Psalm 139
Sep 13, 2009
672
417
32
✟58,397.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I didn't say our will "contravenes" God's. It absolutely does not. We are accountable for our choices and how we exercise our free will, however, because God in His infinite wisdom created us with the ability to choose Him.

And I never said otherwise. God is sovereign and just, He is also compassionate, merciful, forgiving, gracious and relational. Scripture calls us God's "children" for a reason.

And in Christ we are reconciled to the Father and can come boldly before the throne of Grace. So, we should not see God as distant and impersonal.



There is no longer any condemnation for those in Christ.



Saved, born again believers are "headed" for eternity with God.



Yes, we can (and likely all have) at one point or another complained against or questioned God. (Unless we're just being dishonest with ourselves.

Nothing changes the fact that He loved the world enough to send His only begotten Son, and that He desires that none should perish.

We should be careful to remember that while He is absolutely sovereign, Holy, righteous and just, He is also forgiving, slow to anger, compassionate and merciful to us in Jesus Christ.

And He is not distant, aloof or uncaring. As we know, in the Word become "flesh" Who dwelt among us, we have a Saviour who absolutely and completely understands our struggles. Who was tempted in every way, just as we are, and was yet without sin. Jesus Christ calls us to Himself, to rest in Him.

In the Gospel of our salvation, we rejoice in this Hope.

God bless.

Only because you are quoting me can I even tell you are replying to what I've written. It is especially interesting because I agree with everything you are saying and yet you write as though you are arguing my points, which, in the context of what I'm saying, I have not made.

I never said God was impersonal. In fact, as our heavenly Father we should not be surprised our will is met with many yes's and no's we don't want to hear but receive anyways. We have free will, but God does circumvent that will many times (again, think God forcing Jonah to preach as one powerful example among many; He did not change Jonah's will, He simply disregarded it).

The next points are a bit silly to be honest, because it is overtly clear what I meant when I explicitly followed the statement about people not wanting to die and be judged with a question about the fate of those who want an alternative to Jesus for salvation. So yes, those in Christ Jesus are saved and headed for the Kingdom of God. It, however, does not argue any point I made considering you are talking about those in Christ while I was talking about those complaining and searching for an alternative to Him outside the faith in that example.

Yes God loves us and yes He cares about us. I also explicated that prior to making my point about God not ultimately caring about our will when it contravenes His, and God's love and that kind of concern are not the same thing. Many times God will insist on what we don't want, say no to what we do and compel us to go against our baser desires. If we are His children, He will discipline us when we do what we want instead, and if we are not sons and daughters, He will punish us for choosing our own will in eternal separation. Considering those facts, it is clear God does not care what our will is when it is inconsistent with His, because He is far more concerned about your righteousness than your wants to the point of commanding and threatening discipline or condemnation to believers and unbelievers respectively if we insist on our will. Think of the servant who hid His Master's talent in the parable Jesus told in Matthew 25:24-30. Just one example of what God thinks about one whose will it is to be lazy.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Times

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2017
2,581
805
Australia
✟90,081.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Responses to this thread so far have ducked 2 important facts about Mary:

What if those 2 important facts to you, are not in fact facts, rather are two misconceptions based on the lack of information concerning Mary's previous life and so hence you make it a conjecture that she was uneducated and void of any wilful choice.

More evidence is below.....

However, Zechariah doesn’t go into his Canticle as directly as Mary does. And this is part of a larger portrayal of Mary in these early chapters as model disciple—one who hears the word of God and acts on it.

Zechariah-and-Gabriel-300x200.jpg


In fact, there is a subtle difference between the way in which Zechariah and Mary phrase their questions. Zechariah’s question could be quite literally (if awkwardly) translated as “According to what will I know this?” (1:18); whereas Mary’s question focuses not on how she will know, but simply on how this mysterious birth will come about: “How will this be since I do not know man” (my translation).

In other words, we can detect a subtle hint of doubt in Zechariah’s question: how can I know this or how can I be certain? For Mary, it’s not so much a matter of how can I know—it’s more “I know this is true because I trust my source, but I’m dumbfounded as to how it will happen.”

The angel clarifies the contrast we are drawing, by responding to Zechariah this way: “And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things take place, because you did not believe” (1:20). Elizabeth, on the other hand, proclaims Mary’s faith: “Blessed is she who believed that there would be fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord” (1:45).

Zechariah was made a mute because of his unbelief, yet Mary was lifted up, because she expected it and wanted to know more about how it would come about, rather than why or if it will come about.

(I) It is unlikely that she was a well grounded in Scriptures at the time of her impregnation. By Jewish custom, Mary was likely a naïve, innocent, and illiterate young girl, 13-16 years of age, when she gets engaged to Joseph. Jewish girls did not receive an education in Torah like the boys. In fact, one ancient rabbinic tradition treaches that to teach woman Torah is like teaching them obscenity!

This is a great misconception about Mary. You see if you said Jospeh was poor, simple and uneducated, I would side with you on this claim because of his fearful reactions. Yet Mary when told she was pregnant with the Messiah, was not fearful and was almost expecting a blessing along those lines.

In Jewish tradition, woman could not become priests, Mary was most certainly reared up by an educated
Zechariah. Hence she was brought up in the temple of Jerusalem, top university of her day, for special reasons.

Woman used to give themselves as an offering to God, by serving as temple keepers and cleaners, hence making the temple their very home by sleeping in its quarters. You could say the temple was her convent and she, like John the Baptist's mum was like a nun of the convent. Yes that is right, Mary was literally a nun and she offered herself for God and his works and blessings.

She was being prepared to become a Lady of God, ready to receive God’s word in her flesh and to educate her precious Son for his historic role. The mother who knew the Hebrew Bible: the Law, the psalms, the stories of Genesis, and who read it all to and discussed it with her precious son.

It would now seem that Mary lived a hermit and reclusive life, within the temple walls and had given herself to God as is traditionally accepted of women in Judaism. That would explain her lack of surprise in her answer to Gabriel and her lack of fear or apprehension to the idea that she was to be used by God as a vessel for the Lord.

This is where the geanalogy of Mary comes into play, she knew that the Messiah would come through her lineage and she offered herself, as did the many women before her and the language regarding the other women highly suggested that they too offered themselves, yet God as scripture clearly states chose Mary. If it is written God chose Mary, then there certainly was a lineage of willing women who God could have chosen from, throughout the lineage of David.

(2) The angel never asks for Mary's permission for the divine impregnation (Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:31). Rather, she gladly consents to already accomplished impregnation after learning about its divine purpose (Luke 1:38); and God surely ordained Jesus to have a godly willing mother.

The Angel therefore does not need to ask Mary for her permission, because according to her Jewish Torah knowledge and tradition and genealogy, she had offered her self to God and God chose her out of the women from David down to her, otherwise Matthew's opening genealogy chapter would be meaningless. She was not surprised and she had most certainly expected it and not that she had learnt it only when told by the Angel.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What if those 2 important facts to you, are not in fact facts, rather are two misconceptions based on the lack of information concerning Mary's previous life and so hence you make it a conjecture that she was uneducated and void of any wilful choice.

More evidence is below.....

However, Zechariah doesn’t go into his Canticle as directly as Mary does. And this is part of a larger portrayal of Mary in these early chapters as model disciple—one who hears the word of God and acts on it.

Zechariah-and-Gabriel-300x200.jpg


In fact, there is a subtle difference between the way in which Zechariah and Mary phrase their questions. Zechariah’s question could be quite literally (if awkwardly) translated as “According to what will I know this?” (1:18); whereas Mary’s question focuses not on how she will know, but simply on how this mysterious birth will come about: “How will this be since I do not know man” (my translation).

In other words, we can detect a subtle hint of doubt in Zechariah’s question: how can I know this or how can I be certain? For Mary, it’s not so much a matter of how can I know—it’s more “I know this is true because I trust my source, but I’m dumbfounded as to how it will happen.”

The angel clarifies the contrast we are drawing, by responding to Zechariah this way: “And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things take place, because you did not believe” (1:20). Elizabeth, on the other hand, proclaims Mary’s faith: “Blessed is she who believed that there would be fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord” (1:45).

Zechariah was made a mute because of his unbelief, yet Mary was lifted up, because she expected it and wanted to know more about how it would come about, rather than why or if it will come about.



This is a great misconception about Mary. You see if you said Jospeh was poor, simple and uneducated, I would side with you on this claim because of his fearful reactions. Yet Mary when told she was pregnant with the Messiah, was not fearful and was almost expecting a blessing along those lines.

In Jewish tradition, woman could not become priests, Mary was most certainly reared up by an educated
Zechariah. Hence she was brought up in the temple of Jerusalem, top university of her day, for special reasons.

Woman used to give themselves as an offering to God, by serving as temple keepers and cleaners, hence making the temple their very home by sleeping in its quarters. You could say the temple was her convent and she, like John the Baptist's mum was like a nun of the convent. Yes that is right, Mary was literally a nun and she offered herself for God and his works and blessings.

She was being prepared to become a Lady of God, ready to receive God’s word in her flesh and to educate her precious Son for his historic role. The mother who knew the Hebrew Bible: the Law, the psalms, the stories of Genesis, and who read it all to and discussed it with her precious son.

It would now seem that Mary lived a hermit and reclusive life, within the temple walls and had given herself to God as is traditionally accepted of women in Judaism. That would explain her lack of surprise in her answer to Gabriel and her lack of fear or apprehension to the idea that she was to be used by God as a vessel for the Lord.

This is where the geanalogy of Mary comes into play, she knew that the Messiah would come through her lineage and she offered herself, as did the many women before her and the language regarding the other women highly suggested that they too offered themselves, yet God as scripture clearly states chose Mary. If it is written God chose Mary, then there certainly was a lineage of willing women who God could have chosen from, throughout the lineage of David. This would refute this false point you make.



The Angel therefore does not need to ask Mary for her permission, because according to her Jewish Torah knowledge and tradition and genealogy, she had offered her self to God and God chose her out of the women from David down to her, otherwise Matthew's opening genealogy chapter would be meaningless. She was not surprised and she had expected it and not learnt it only then as you incorrectly assert.

Here is where most conjectures are out to rest and silenced forever!

Interesting. This was also a time when the expectation of a Messiah who would sweep away the occupiers and clear out the collaborators was pretty much at fever pitch.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: The Times
Upvote 0

The Times

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2017
2,581
805
Australia
✟90,081.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Amen. Like for we who are disciples today - when we became followers of Yeshua, immersed inHim, we declared THOU ART MASTER at that time (and SAVIOR),
and ANYTHING HE tells us to do after that is expected to be done willingly, with joy and whole-heartedly, even unto suffering and death and loss of everything.

We said "YES MASTER!" , in grace by faith, His Gift, once for all time,
no matter what He tells us to DO, where to GO.

"Let there be Light!"

Him, Him and only Him!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Times

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2017
2,581
805
Australia
✟90,081.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
And instead of that

SURPRISE ! SALVATION COMES !

What a timing of timing that was, wasn't it!

This is the awesomeness of God, where he checkmates the enemies and proceeds to silence them forever.

To God timing is everything.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,187
US
✟1,441,679.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I believe that Mary, a virgin, married Joseph and they conceived Jesus the natural way. Mary and Joseph were "chosen" like Abram was "chosen" to be the parents of Jesus. After conceiving Jesus, Gabriel appeared and revealed the miracle that the Son of God, his master, was her child.

Mary chose to wed Joseph and presumably chose to copulate and accepted the honor bestowed upon them.

So why would Joseph intend initially to divorce her?

Or are you just ignoring that for your logically superior conclusion?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Times
Upvote 0

amariselle

Jesus Never Fails
Sep 28, 2004
6,648
4,194
The Great Northern Wilderness
✟60,500.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
There were no Protestant religious orders until the 19th century. The restoration of monasticism in a Protestant church happened in America, in the 19th century, by William Muhlenberg, a German convert to Episcopalianism and a priest who was allied with what later became known as Anglo-Catholicism, a religious movement among Anglicans which rejected much of the Protestant attitudes towards the Catholic past.

During the Carolignian reign in England prior to the Civil War, there was a house called Little Gilding where Christians lived a cloistered life of prayer together but it was harassed by Puritans and did not endure. With the exception of a few Lutherans in Germany who continued to live as monastics since the Reformation (all monks), Protestants were overwhelmingly opposed to monasticism. The state churches seized the property of monastic houses on trumped up charges of sodomy and corruption, spurned on by propaganda and ideology.



They were forced to by their circumstances, if they wanted to have a good reputation and even in many cases, food to eat and shelter over their heads. Social welfare did not really exist back then as a right. To be a spinster or widow was a terrible curse, as a result, which is why those terms have such negative conotations even into the present day.

Worse, a single woman could be accused of witchcraft very easily. Protestants engaged in witch-hunts with more zeal even than Catholics. Luther saw evil spirits everywhere, as did the Reformed churches, perhaps even more. And vulnerable, unmarried women were the easiest scapegoats for anxieties about supernatural evil.

So your suggestion that Protestant women had options in their life just isn't true. Their destiny was to get married and have alot of kids, or face a harsh and brutal life, quite possibly a short one.

The death of monasticism did not just effect women of course, it took choices away from men. You started seeing what were called "Sturdy Beggars" in Tudor England. Poor men who previously could join a monastic order or offer to work for a monastery suddenly found a new "vocation", as a highwayman or robber. In addition, many of these same types of men also would later become pirates at sea, indeed, the English were notorious for piracy, government-sanctioned or not. And all so Henry VIII could fatten his purse with the ill-gotten riches taken from the Church.

Protestantism nearly destroyed the social fabric of many European countries, in many cases the only thing holding it together was the emergence of the new, powerful nation-state that ruled by force and national myth-making.

This is all pretty off topic. But the issues you bring up definitely have more to do with society, the class system, etc. of the time, and not simply because of Protestantism.

And monasteries were far from the safe houses you seem to believe they were.

The truth is women were more vulnerable at that time whether they were Protestant or Catholic.

So, I stand by my initial point, all the blame for such treatment of and attitudes toward women cannot rightly be attributed to Protestantism. Such things were already a reality long before the Reformation.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

amariselle

Jesus Never Fails
Sep 28, 2004
6,648
4,194
The Great Northern Wilderness
✟60,500.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Without a channel for celibacy (such as monasticism) women, by and large, had only one option in Protestant circles: Wives and mothers.

If you are aware of something otherwise, I wouldn't mind learning about it.

-CryptoLutheran

Well, as this is off topic, I won't go into it. However, while celibacy may have actually been a truth for many and a choice they were able to live out, it didn't always happen that way.

There is more than enough historic evidence to show that monastic life was not always what it appeared to be on the surface. And research into such things calls much of what went on in those places into question.

But that is a topic for another thread.
 
Upvote 0