God's Wife is Mary

quote=Technocrat2010;She was with child. With... child. That takes precedence over the breakage of the hymen, given that that was much more obvious.

Click to expand...

But not any more legal, bro.(gotta love your heart...even if a half bottle of Barefoot mkes it easier )

In Genesis 49:4, the defiling of another's wife is cause for sorrow. This links with 2 Samuel 16, where Absalom defiles Davids concubines in public, which subsequently leads to David confining the concubines in 2 Samuel 20 and never sleeping with them again.

Click to expand...

Was Mary defiled?

I never said the Lord was the bride. Israel was the bride.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you never meant to, but the post before my last one reads thus:

"The idea of the Lord being the bride of Israel is ..."

Click to expand...

As feelin' good as I am right now, you can't convince me I'm seein' things, mon ami.

Mary wasn't thick enough to be ignorant of the process by which children were naturally conceived (i.e. sex).

Click to expand...

Agweed,... (silently rofl)

So why did she ask that question? To be thick? I think not...

Click to expand...

Me either, neither. It was boner fidee, & I'm till mist-i-fried as to the scientific particulosees of the actual factuals of the deed in questumosis.
Where is Thekula when I Greekly need her?

strange, because I thought somewhere down the line, someone claimed that being married to the Holy Spirit was the reason Mary couldn't have sex with her legal husband.

Click to expand...

i dont konw, i never heard that

jckstraw72 said:

i dont konw, i never heard that

Click to expand...

It was discussed. but anyways...

Then why could she not have sex with her legal husband I wonder?

It was discussed. but anyways...

Then why could she not have sex with her legal husband I wonder?

Click to expand...

i always thought of it as more of a "she was dedicated to God" type things

Rhamiel said:

i always thought of it as more of a "she was dedicated to God" type things

Click to expand...

So, you can not be both dedicated to God and your legal husband then (and preform wifely duties)? And if she did perform wifely duties for her husband (such as cooking and cleaning) why not sex as well?

Not only can you be dedicated to both your spouse and God but married people are suposed to do both.
I think a bit of it is the idea of the sacred in the OT and NT, Solomans temple was not also a town meeting hall, it was set aside for use by the Lord, this is the Mother of Jesus

Rhamiel said:

Not only can you be dedicated to both your spouse and God but married people are suposed to do both.
I think a bit of it is the idea of the sacred in the OT and NT, Solomans temple was not also a town meeting hall, it was set aside for use by the Lord, this is the Mother of Jesus

Click to expand...

that implies that the Lord "used" her for sex, which is a use that you can say a husband might have of his wife.

Can the Lord not "use" Mary any longer if she had sex with her legal husband?

It ain't like she was "above" desiring what God had provided for.

I fail to see why the teaching of the continence of Mary and Joseph is such an offensive witness

especially given the present practice of polygamy - both serial and concurrent.

The sacrificial lamb was always the first to open the womb. Mary, by the Holy Spirit from whom Jesus came, satisfied that requirement after which her earthly duties were required by God, i.e., being a wife to Joseph.

Ormly said:

The sacrificial lamb was always the first to open the womb. Mary, by the Holy Spirit from whom Jesus came, satisfied that requirement after which her earthly duties were required by God, i.e., being a wife to Joseph.

Click to expand...

but Christ says, in Matthew, that for those who can give room to continence (in the verse called eunuch), let him

regardless of our particular circumstances, we are to do what God has called us to do -- no matter how foolish it may seem to the world (like build an ark on dry land, be fed by a crow, bring down a wall with trumpets, etc etc etc). I do think that in our present society, continence of any kind is considered so unusual, even foolish, we cannot consider that anyone would choose it.

so, has God told us all of the particular calling that Mary and Joseph were to walk ? As no conclusive evidence either way is given in the NT, then we each follow our own tradition on the matter.

and for consideration; the teachings on the respect for Mary, her ever virginity, and the particularity of her calling -- and her living out of her calling-- have been eroded over centuries. It may be instructive to compare this erosion with now tacitly acceptable practices in cultures where this is the case: promiscuity, a degraded view of the value of mothers, a competitive view of our "calling" (at least our secular one).

What we respect we emulate, and act in our interactions with others.

Thekla said:

but Christ says, in Matthew, that for those who can give room to continence (in the verse called eunuch), let him

regardless of our particular circumstances, we are to do what God has called us to do -- no matter how foolish it may seem to the world (like build an ark on dry land, be fed by a crow, bring down a wall with trumpets, etc etc etc). I do think that in our present society, continence of any kind is considered so unusual, even foolish, we cannot consider that anyone would choose it.

so, has God told us all of the particular calling that Mary and Joseph were to walk ? As no conclusive evidence either way is given in the NT, then we each follow our own tradition on the matter.

Click to expand...

If you truly believe that then why choose one and call it an absolute??

Ormly said:

If you truly believe that then why choose one and call it an absolute??

Click to expand...

just stating what is done.

I do believe the teaching.

The other position is a tradition.

both positions cannot wholly rely on the Gospels for support, so both reflect the influence of milieu.

Thekla said:

just stating what is done.

I do believe the teaching.

The other position is a tradition.

both positions cannot wholly rely on the Gospels for support, so both reflect the influence of milieu.

Click to expand...

Given the whole context of the Gospel, one can be demonstrated to be most accurate. But that doesn't answer my question, does it? You believe one to be absolute in light of declaring neither view can be proven to be correct except by man's reasoning. How do you do you that, and you must because you claim one as truth? Answer, You don't hold to the Gospel has having all the truth of Jesus Christ but add to it to shape it to make fit a religion..

Ormly said:

Given the whole context of the Gospel, one can be demonstrated to be most accurate. But that doesn't answer my question, does it? You believe one to be absolute in light of declaring neither view can be proven to be correct except by man's reasoning. How do you do you that, and you must because you claim one as truth? Answer, You don't hold to the Gospel has having all the truth of Jesus Christ but add to it to shape it to make fit a religion..

Click to expand...

the disagreement -- per the information openly available in the Gospels -- centers around the term for sibling. In John 19:25, two sisters named Mary are mentioned.

Anything more than consideration of sibling-terms, per a surface reading, requires that assumptions be brought from "outside the text" (as the prophetic verses in the OT are not seen as valid by many in the non-apostolic confessions, nor parallels in language use between Luke and the OT).

Ormly said:

Given the whole context of the Gospel, one can be demonstrated to be most accurate.

Click to expand...

That is an opinion based upon your reading. My reading of this issue even when I was a Protestant was that Mary had no other children- specifically due to the giving of Mary to John's care.
But of course, as been noted, arguments to and for this and other arguments have been waged ad infinitum, with no conclusion other than the preference of the reader.

Ormly said:

But that doesn't answer my question, does it? You believe one to be absolute in light of declaring neither view can be proven to be correct except by man's reasoning.

Click to expand...

One person's "human reasoning" is another person's "revelation." The way I see it, surmising that Mary had children is human reasoning- especially in light of the fact that the belief is oft predicated upon the idea that married (or in this case, betrothed) persons absolutely must be having sex.

Ormly said:

How do you do you that, and you must because you claim one as truth? Answer, You don't hold to the Gospel has having all the truth of Jesus Christ but add to it to shape it to make fit a religion..

Click to expand...

One might just as easily suggest you are doing precisely what you have accused- but I wouldn't- that would be ad hominem.

The point that apparently you missed is that it has been clearly demonstrated that this issue cannot be resolved by scripture. In such a case, one either abandons or suspends belief, or one clings to the faith that makes the most sense.

You, nor I, can "prove" the existence of God- through scriptures, science, or experience. Yet I believe with my whole heart- not only because of what the bible says, but because of my own experience and the witness of the Church.

Hence, why Orthodox and Catholic Christians believe in the Ever-Virginity.

Rdr Iakovos said:

One person's "human reasoning" is another person's "revelation." The way I see it, surmising that Mary had children is human reasoning- especially in light of the fact that the belief is oft predicated upon the idea that married (or in this case, betrothed) persons absolutely must be having sex.

Click to expand...

Yes, if you read the bible through, one would naturally believe that Mary was a wife to Joseph and they raised Jesus, and their other children together as husband and wife, and that it's perfectly natural that they had sex (which was not unlawful and perfectly natural) and the bible even suggests that they did, for it says that they did not come together UNTIL the birth of Jesus, implying that they did. Also, no where does it says that Mary was forever a virgin, or suggests it (you'd think that they would mention it, it being such a big deal and such). So, in adding this belief of perpetual virginity is beyond human reasoning, there has to be a belief behind it, and that is that sex is inherently bad (wonder if that belief came from the Orthodox church?), so that Mary, who they claim is perfect, could not have had sex with her husband, and read it instead in that light. that is the only reasonable explaination. Paul, and Jesus, do not point out that sex is to be avoided, but that marriage itself takes away somewhat from one's dedication to the Lord, and all that goes along with it. And I would agree with that, marriage is hard, and distracting. It's not that the Lord thinks that sex is evil and doesn't want us to do it, because that's what we were designed for, was to reproduce (which includes having sex) and have a family and be joined together in a monogamous relationship.

LJSGM said:

Yes, if you read the bible through, one would naturally believe that Mary was a wife to Joseph and they raised Jesus, and their other children together as husband and wife, and that it's perfectly natural that they had sex (which was not unlawful and perfectly natural) and the bible even suggests that they did, for it says that they did not come together UNTIL the birth of Jesus, implying that they did. Also, no where does it says that Mary was forever a virgin, or suggests it (you'd think that they would mention it, it being such a big deal and such). So, in adding this belief of perpetual virginity is beyond human reasoning, there has to be a belief behind it, and that is that sex is inherently bad (wonder if that belief came from the Orthodox church?), so that Mary, who they claim is perfect, could not have had sex with her husband, and read it instead in that light. that is the only reasonable explaination. Paul, and Jesus, do not point out that sex is to be avoided, but that marriage itself takes away somewhat from one's dedication to the Lord, and all that goes along with it. And I would agree with that, marriage is hard, and distracting. It's not that the Lord thinks that sex is evil and doesn't want us to do it, because that's what we were designed for, was to reproduce (which includes having sex) and have a family and be joined together in a monogamous relationship.

Click to expand...

one would "naturally believe" any number of things from reading any text. The question is, what does the text concretely support ?

Nor is the teaching of ever-virginity about "sex is evil".

Is there any way to change the title of this thread?