He says:
Why not believe in her ever-virginity?
B/c the preponderance of the biblical testimony is against it, but in a way he's right b/c it's not a big deal either way.
The main problem (not for an EO, but for RCC) is that RCC has dogmatically proclaimed that belief in the PV of the BVM is a dogma that MUST NOT BE DISBELIEVED on pain of loss of salvation. Rome has made it part of the Gospel, and that is disgusting.
To argue against Mary's perpetual virginity is to suggest something else that is greatly implausible, not to say unthinkable: that neither Mary nor her protector, Joseph, would have deemed it inappropriate to have sexual relations after the birth of God in the flesh.
This is a ridiculous thing to say.
Hebrews 13: 4 - Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
Look at that - it is to be held IN HONOR among all. So, Mary and Joseph did not engage in some honorable activity that was available to them?
In fact, not only available, but necessary:
1 Cor 7:2But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.
3The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.
4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
5Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
To say that "Well, Mary wouldn't be subject to those immoralities, wouldn't be prone to that kind of temptation" is to engage in wishful speculation. The standing command is, if you're married and physically able, you engage in marital conjugal relations, and that is honorable, commanded, good, and undefiled.
An early first-century popular rabbinical tradition (first recorded by Philo, 20 BC-AD 50) notes that Moses "separated himself"
I suppose that might matter if 1st-century popular rabbinical traditions (kinda like the one that Jesus condemned in Mark 7:1-13) were to be our authority. There is no indication of this in the OT text.
they express the popular piety in Israel at the time of the birth of Christ.
Popular piety at the time of Christ also led to incredible hypocrisy of action, where great crowds followed Christ around so that He'd heal them and feed them, yet walked away from Him when He gave them hard teaching in John 6, shouted Hosanna and fêted him with palm branches when He entered Jerusalem, yet screamed "Crucify Him!! His blood be on us and on our children!" a few days later.
Would this not have been grounds to consider her life, including her body, as consecrated to God and God alone?
Yes, of course! Now, were you going to discuss the question of Mary's perpetual virginity sometime?
Or it more plausible that she would shrug it all off and get on with keeping house in the usual fashion?
With the Son of God in her household? No, of course not. She "treasured up all these things in her heart." Now, about her perpetual virginity...?
Consider that the poetically parallel incident of the Lord's entry through the east gate of the Temple (in Ezekiel 43-44) prompts the call: "This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut" (44:2).
And on what basis does he make the connection between the Temple and Mary? Does anyone in the NT ever do that?
The Temple was also profaned and destroyed by foreign invaders, and later rebuilt. It was profaned by Judan kings who set up false idols inside. The high priest could enter once a year. How are these things paralleled in Mary's life? Or is it just the case that he is making specious parallels?
If touching the ark of the covenant had cost Uzzah his life
B/c God had specifically commanded how the Ark was to be carried, and they weren't doing it that way. Where is the command about not touching Mary?
Uzzah's touching it was defiling and dishonorable, but as we've seen, the marriage bed is UNdefiled and is honorable. So the analogy is way off.
Joseph, man of God that he was, would neither have dared nor desired to approach Mary, the chosen of Israel, the throne of God, to request his "conjugal rights"!
Notice the implicit swipe at Mary's virtue here. It's not Joseph's place to "request" it, it's Mary's responsibility to offer and participate wholeheartedly, just like it was Joseph's. I thought Mary was all-virtuous and the most obedient woman who ever lived.
The point is that the commonly used Greek word for a male relative, adelphos, can be translated "cousin" or "brother" if no specific family relation is indicated.
But there is at least one Greek term that can easily be used to mean "more distant male relative", but (edit for clarity in green) there is only the one whose semantic range includes "brother".
Nowhere is Mary explicitly stated to be the mother of Jesus' brothers.
Let me recommend Eric Svendsen's discussion of this in his book Who Is My Mother?.
Also:
Here
Here
Here
Here
Streaming audio of James White and Eric Svendsen debate pre-heresy Gerry Matatics on this issue
The Meaning of "Firstborn"
Here he is attempting to cast doubt on the transparent meaning of "firstborn". This is a vague answer to a weak argument against the PV of the BVM.
our Lord commits His Mother into the care of St. John as He dies on the Cross. Why would He do so if she had other children to look after her?
B/c "even His brothers (oops, I mean distant cousins) were not believing in Him". He devotes her to the motherhood of a believing disciple.
Mary's ever-virginity is not essential to the proclamation of the Gospel, and this is true on a certain level.
Here this unbelieving, disobedient priest bucks against the rightful authority that he should heed, the RCC. Just saying.
Mary was not a happenstance vessel of God; rather her role in our salvation was prepared from the beginning of the ages.
Well, either that or God knew all the possible options from the beginning of the world but didn't know for sure how it would play out, but worked it toward His purpose to make it happen. Thankfully, it did all work out.
She was not cast aside as an article that is no longer useful.
then
she is the great example
Notice the extremes, the false dilemma. Either she was the perpetually virgin, or she was an article that is no longer useful. One thing I appreciate about these kinds of views is how they lift up the every-day believer. What room is there for my wife, for example, to be encouraged by Mary's example, since she has apparently abased herself before my requests to conjugal relations (to use this priest's words) and therefore is an article that is less useful to God. How exactly is this supposed to be the grand inspiration to anyone?
Awed by the beauty of your virginity
and the exceeding radiance of your purity,
Gabriel stood amazed, and cried to you, O Mother of God:
"What praise may I offer you
that is worthy of your beauty?
By what name shall I call you?
I am lost and bewildered,
but I shall greet you as I was commanded:
Hail, O full of grace."
This, friends, is but one more illustration of why the Reformation was and continues to be so important.
Posts
33 comments:
Rhology,
"This is a ridiculous thing to say.
Hebrews 13: 4 - Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
Look at that - it is to be held IN HONOR among all. So, Mary and Joseph did not engage in some honorable activity that was available to them?
In fact, not only available, but necessary: ... "
Your quote from Hebrews is simply saying that everyone must hold the institution of marriage in honour, and married people must not defile their marriage bed through sexual immoralities. The interpretation you are trying to draw from it and apply to the marriage of Mary and Joseph is eisegesis.
Are you saying that it is sexually immoral for a married couple to abstain from conjugal relations?
"The standing command is, if you're married and physically able, you engage in marital conjugal relations, and that is honorable, commanded, good, and undefiled."
It's convenient how you stopped your quote from 1 Cor 7 just shy of verse 6 which says: "I say this as a concession, not as a command". It's also interesting that Paul should say in verse 7, "But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that". I wonder what gift was given to Jospeh.
Do you believe that, in order for a marriage to be valid, conjugal relations are an absolute requirement?
Makes you wonder how in the heck that mandatory belief in this gnostic fantasy, becomes a salvation issue.
It would interesting to see what additional novelties spring up in a couple hundred years. I have my money on Mary being declared CoRedemptrix.
married people must not defile their marriage bed through sexual immoralities
1) It doesn't say that. If it said that, it would say that. It says what I quoted.
2) Is that just your private interpretation?
The interpretation you are trying to draw from it and apply to the marriage of Mary and Joseph
I'm not applying it to one marriage in particular. It applies to all marriages. Maybe if Mary were as important and occupied such a grandiose part of the plan of God, the author of Hebrews would have mentioned her in exclusion.
Are you saying it is sexually immoral for a married couple to abstain from conjugal relations?
Not me, but the NT. If they are physically able, yes, it is immoral to abstain "except for a time, that they may devote themselves to prayer. Then come together again", as Paul says in 1 Cor 7.
It's also interesting that Paul should say in verse 7, "But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that". I wonder what gift was given to Jospeh.
Whatever it was, it wasn't the gift of celibacy, otherwise he would've remained...you know, celibate.
in order for a marriage to be valid, conjugal relations are an absolute requirement?
Someone needs to read 1 Cor 7 again.
Oops, I meant "Maybe if Mary were as important and occupied such a grandiose part of the plan of God as RCC claims she does, the author of Hebrews would have mentioned her in exclusion"
Rhology,
"1) It doesn't say that. If it said that, it would say that. It says what I quoted.
2) Is that just your private interpretation?"
1) Right, it does say what you quoted, but it doesn't mean what you interpreted it to mean, that a married couple is not holding marriage in honour if they do not engage in conjugal relations.
2) Not at all. I'm letting the text speak for itself, and paying attention to the basic rules of English syntax and grammar.
"Maybe if Mary were as important and occupied such a grandiose part of the plan of God as RCC claims she does, the author of Hebrews would have mentioned her in exclusion"
Right, but you have not convincingly proved that such an exclusion is even necessary because your interpretation of Hebrews and 1 Corinthians is highly suspect.
"yes, it is immoral to abstain "except for a time, that they may devote themselves to prayer. Then come together again", as Paul says in 1 Cor 7."
But, again, that's not what Paul is saying. He says it is a good thing to mutually agree to abstain for a time, but to come together again "so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control", not because abstaining is inherently immoral.
And, again, he goes on to say that: "I say this as a concession, not as a command." So it would seem that you are going far beyond what is written.
"Whatever it was, it wasn't the gift of celibacy, otherwise he would've remained...you know, celibate."
The claims that Mary had other children after Jesus are bogus and easily refuted, so, if you wish to beat that dead horse, by all means, go ahead.
And, again, he goes on to say that: "I say this as a concession, not as a command." So it would seem that you are going far beyond what is written.
And he then goes on to say,
"I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."
He "permits" marriage, but "wishes" that more people could practice celibacy (under their specific circumstances). The point is, marriage is equated with sexual relations and singleness is equated with celibacy. He says nothing that would allow permanent celibacy within marriage. In fact, he equates that with "defrauding" one's spouse.
Ree,
"He says nothing that would allow permanent celibacy within marriage."
And he says nothing that would prevent it either.
I strongly disagree with your and Rhology's interpretation of this verse. You are both twisting what it's saying and trying to make it stand on all fours just so it can support your argument against Mary.
It never ceases to amaze me to what lengths Protestants will go in order to detract from the Catholic (and Orthodox) beliefs about the Mother of God.
nothing that would prevent it either
Except for
3The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.
4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
5Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Rhology,
Good points.
The belief in the PV is called pious opinion and should not be dogma.
You are quite right about your wife. How can she be a Christian wife if she is violating St. Paul's injunction not to deprive each other of marital relations?
LPC
Easy, LP. She took a vow of virginity shortly after we got married, so as to be holier and set apart as an Ark. Sucks to be me.
Wintrowski,
Uh... I'm puzzled by something that you said.
"'2) Is that just your private interpretation?'
[...]
2) Not at all. I'm letting the text speak for itself, and paying attention to the basic rules of English syntax and grammar."
Suppose I say, "I know the Catholic Church got X wrong, because I'm letting the text speak for itself, and paying attention to the basic rules of English syntax and grammar." Aren't you going to respond that that's just my private interpretation?
What's your criteria for distinguishing between "private interpretation" and "letting the test speak for itself"?
Jugulum,
"Suppose I say, "I know the Catholic Church got X wrong, because I'm letting the text speak for itself, and paying attention to the basic rules of English syntax and grammar." Aren't you going to respond that that's just my private interpretation?"
Well, I would hopefully try to give you a more respectful and reasonable answer than just some childish, obtuse retort like that. As Chesterton aptly said, "it is generally the man who is not ready to argue, who is ready to sneer."
"What's your criteria for distinguishing between "private interpretation" and "letting the test speak for itself"?"
I don't distinguish between the two, but I do distinguish between mangling a text to suit my own whims and not going beyond what is written.
'Consider that the poetically parallel incident of the Lord's entry through the east gate of the Temple (in Ezekiel 43-44) prompts the call: "This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut" (44:2).'
"And on what basis does he make the connection between the Temple and Mary?"
Do you really not see the basis? It's because both were passed through by the Lord God of Israel. In the cited verse, the reason no one should ever enter by the gate is simply that the Lord has entered by it. If the Lord enters by a gate, that gates remains closed forever. No further explanation or argument is offered.
I'm not saying this is dispositive. But it seems a tad disingenuous to claim not to see any parallel between the two.
If you want to add up all the evidence and say, this side has more points than that side, fine. But what you appear to be doing is refusing to see any of the other side's points whatsoever, as though they must be disagreed with as a matter of principle, regardless of merit.
We all know what happened to Nebuchadnezzar when he tried to use the holy vessels of the Temple for worldly purposes. Or to Uzzah when he as much as touched the Ark of the Covenant. Or Ezekiel's prophecy (44:1-3).
Rome has made it part of the Gospel, and that is disgusting.
That's precisely the word that a certain "pro-choice" atheist used to describe the views of those that 'dared' argue to the contrary.
The Temple was also profaned and destroyed by foreign invaders, and later rebuilt. It was profaned by Judan kings who set up false idols inside.
...and these are the examples You want to follow? :-\ Do You want to share in the same fate as the above-mentioned king?
The high priest could enter once a year. How are these things paralleled in Mary's life?
The High-Priest is Christ. The year is the greatest natural cycle and represents eternity.
And on what basis does he make the connection between the Temple and Mary?
On the basis that God's Glory or Shekinah, which is Christ before the Incarnation, entered it and indwelt its Sanctuary (Altar).
- Why not believe in her ever-virginity?
- B/c the preponderance of the biblical testimony is against it
As to Your insistance on the meaning of the word "brother" signifying nothing else but brother, contrary to constant biblical testimony which clearly shows otherwise, I am affraid You're fighting here against Rheality, and it's rheally hard to kick against the pricks.
Are Abraham and Lot brothers?
Are David and Jonathan brothers?
Are all Christians brothers?
Are Lot and Abraham *at least* cousins? Are David and Jonathan even *remotely* related to each-other? Do You and Your wife form an incestuous couple?
the marriage bed is UN-defiled and is honorable.
And so is drinking from golden cups and vessels, or preventing a wooden goldplated box from falling off a chariot, or drinking water (2 Samuel 23:16; 1 Chronicles 11:18).
So the analogy is way off.
Is it?
B/c "even His brothers (oops, I mean distant cousins) were not believing in Him". He devotes her to the motherhood of a believing disciple.
But they eventually became believers only days later. (Acts 12:17; 1 Corinthians 15:7; Galatians 1:19). So what would've been the point?
Here he is attempting to cast doubt on the transparent meaning of "firstborn".
Laying aside the very important legal significance of the first-born in the Old Covenant, and the rights that come along with it, does the use of that word in Romans 8:29 mean that we are all born of God's divine substance in the same manner as Jesus? If not, then why implying otherwise about Mary's own human substance? [BTW, if the name of Romania's (former) king is Michael I, does that mean that there also exists a Michael II ?]
What room is there for my wife, for example, to be encouraged by Mary's example, since she has apparently abased herself before my requests to conjugal relations (to use this priest's words) and therefore is an article that is less useful to God. How exactly is this supposed to be the grand inspiration to anyone?
First of all, marriage is more than intimate relations: Mary bore her Son into the world, and women are redeemed through child-birth (1 Timothy 2:15), her primary role being that of a mother (and You can tell this to Mr. Obama also). Secondly, married women are not the only ones to whom she might be an inspiration: there are also virgins, remember? (Nazarites, Elijah, Jesus, John the Baptist; Matthew 19:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 7 entire).
re:
This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut
I can see the referent of this is Jesus in that once he entered the Temple (holy of holies whose covering got rented in two). But the Temple as we know is no longer there and so it is in that sense shut, you cannot go there anymore - it is gone.
But to say that this referent is the womb of Mary in that her virginity is perpetual is a stretch. The jumping to allegorical hermeneutic without control by exegesis gives us a license to make it mean what we want it to mean.
LPC
Wintrowski said:
As Chesterton aptly said, "it is generally the man who is not ready to argue, who is ready to sneer."
You must not be up on the common practice of numerous RC epologists, whose very common retort to almost any biblical psg one may cite is "Well, that's just your private interpretation." Maybe you don't use that kind of pathetic argumentation; so much the better for you. It is certainly not my strategy; I was turning your brethren back on you, but the slight subtlety was apparently lost on you.
Rhology,
"Maybe you don't use that kind of pathetic argumentation; so much the better for you. It is certainly not my strategy;"
The manner in which you conduct yourself around the blogosphere speaks very much to the contrary. Your petty and contemptuous quips, retorts, and brush-offs are a never ending example of a poor intellect. I don't believe I've ever seen a respectful and well-reasoned argument from you, however, you certainly do sneer a lot.
The main problem (not for an EO, but for RCC) is that RCC has dogmatically proclaimed that belief in the PV of the BVM is a dogma that MUST NOT BE DISBELIEVED on pain of loss of salvation. Rome has made it part of the Gospel, and that is disgusting.
Where exactly is that in the RCC official documents and when did it become that?
2 Nicea ?
2 Constantinople?
That was an excellent clip of Jerry Matatics on the Dividing Line. Seems that the idea of Pepetural Virginity comes from Gnosticism and apocryphal works - Odes of solomon, Ascension of Isaiah, and Proto-evangelium of James.
Excellent work against this bad doctrine.
Ken,
"The main problem (not for an EO, but for RCC) is that RCC has dogmatically proclaimed that belief in the PV of the BVM is a dogma that MUST NOT BE DISBELIEVED on pain of loss of salvation. Rome has made it part of the Gospel, and that is disgusting."
It would only be wrong and "disgusting" if it were untrue and contrary to other revealed truths. Would you like to get involved with that discussion, or would you rather just hurl sneers from the sidelines?
Wintrowski has a different definition of "sneer" than most people, it would seem. He also doesn't seem to realise when he's doing it (which is most of the time).
Ken,
See MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS.
See MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS
Will do...
And so it is that the bodies of even the just are corrupted after death, and only on the last day will they be joined, each to its own glorious soul.
Except for the relics... (Oops!)
5. Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule
Her... and the relics... which did not need be assumed into heaven in order for them to not taste decay.
She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave
Neither were the relics...
The entire document is the same, going on and on about her not seeing corruption, but the relics don't see corruption either, and they're neither assumed up into the heavens, nor were the Saints to whom they belonged free from original sin.
Here's something to think about...
Anyone who denies that Mary is ever-virgin must be willing, in theory, to imagine conjugal relations existed during fetal development. Any deniers who hold this opinion?
Maybe Joseph was excited to celebrate this mighty work of God through an honourable,necessary,pleasurable God-given right. Divine providence ordered this event to lead to that conjugal act, which is sadly denied to RCC priests.
Rhology,
Now should the use of "disgusting" be reconsidered ?
EBW said:
"Anyone who denies that Mary is ever-virgin must be willing, in theory, to imagine conjugal relations existed during fetal development. Any deniers who hold this opinion?"
This is just about as bizarre a statement as I've read in a while. Matthew 1:25 reads, "but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus."
Seems common sense to me but, in theory, conjugal relations didn't and couldn't occur until after she gave birth to a son.
Unless you were insinuating something else, and it is way over my head, your post makes no sense whatsoever.
Discipled by Him,
I just wanted to gauge the limitations of PV deniers. For them to refute this theory seems necessary, b/c they hold unwaveringly to the carnal meaning of Joseph "knowing" his wife. The text you quoted serves as a proof-text for them. If this meaning of "knew" is denied them, then the only recourse is to the prophecy/promise of a "virgin conceiving AND bearing a son".
But if one grants this recourse, then PV believers have a stronger case. We have an example other than "being deprived by agreement for prayer" 1Cor. where deprivation is expected and highly praised. Besides, why should deniers PRESUME that Joseph/Mary were so willing to remove this Virgin-Mother status. If anything there seems to be a strong case to preserve it. Thoughts?
EBW,
I always find it more than bizarre that RCs, even pros like Gerry Matatics, think it's some kind of good argument to focus this discussion on points like whether the BVM remained a virgin (that is, her virginal hymen/tissues remained intact) WHILE giving birth to Christ (who cares?) and you here asking whether J & M had sex while she was pregnant.
No, see Matt 1:25. Jesus was born. They resumed normal marital relations after.
Discipled By Him said they "couldn't". It's not that they COULDN'T, it's that they DIDN'T, not until sometime AFTER Jesus' birth. Just a quick clarification.
Rhology, I only mentioned it "couldn't" occur based on the verse itself, since it explicitly said they didn't until after Christ's birth.
Was the possibility there? Sure, but according the Gospel of Matthew, it didn't - therefore it couldn't have a possibility in EBW's scenario.
They resumed normal marital relations after.
That's hardly what Matt 1:25 says.
"knew" "knew" "knew"
As long as "knew" means carnal relations the PV deniers have a strong case (a case that Jerome helped strengthen).Knowledge of Vision is a good canidid for this word.
While Moses spoke to God, his face
brightened so that the Isrealites could not look closely. Mary, while being overshadowed by the brightness of God's power, could not be seen (known) by Joseph,until she gave birth. Then Mary with a sort of unveiled Virginity could be seen in the light of the fullness of times.
Mary, while being overshadowed by the brightness of God's power, could not be seen (known) by Joseph,until she gave birth. Then Mary with a sort of unveiled Virginity could be seen in the light of the fullness of times.
Since the text never says anything of the kind, where do you get all that?
Where is "Virginity" made equivalent to God's glory, as Moses saw?
Rhology,
My intention was not to make God's glory equal w/anytng created. The cause is always greater than the effect.
The use of Moses was more directed towards Joseph. By highlighting a biblical example of God's glory coming through brightness, it became easy to contrast w/ Isreal's lack of vision. I think Joseph's "lack of knowing" is akin to "lack of vision". Joseph did not "know her" until "she brought forth her firstborn son". Once the son was brought forth, Joseph knew her (that is he gained a knowledge of her through the light of Christ coming into the world)
Matthew 1:20-25
These verses include a parallel
between the Angel's words and Joseph's response. Look closely.
Angel:
1. Take Mary as your wife
2. that..conceived in HER is
of the HOLY GHOST
3. she shall bring forth a son
4. you shall call his name JESUS
Joseph:
1. took unto him his wife
2. and he knew HER not until
3. she brought..her..son
4. he called..Jesus
I think each #2 should be interpreted together. In summary, Joseph lacked spiritual knowledge regarding Mary's virginity, the son conceived and the Holy Ghost. Taken together they manifest the surpassing glory of the New Covenant. All of these were "veiled" to him before the birth but "unveiled" at the birth.
Understanding "knew" as carnal seems to be forced but I do see it implied in v.18
That's my take on it.
That's called "free association", not serious exegesis.
Also, if "knew" is not "carnal" (I pause to wonder aloud at how strange must be your view of marital sex), what is it? He didn't get to know her, as in they didn't talk? He knew her name and that's about it? What else could it mean?
I know I'm kinda late to the party (Yeah, about 4 months late), but I've got a couple extra pennies in my pocket I figured I'd throw into the pot. If you don't mind, Mr. Swan :)
EBW said, While Moses spoke to God, his face brightened so that the Isrealites could not look closely. Mary, while being overshadowed by the brightness of God's power, could not be seen (known) by Joseph, until she gave birth. Then Mary with a sort of unveiled Virginity could be seen in the light of the fullness of times.
OK. Nobody could see her while she was pregnant. So......how did her cousin Elizabeth talk with her? In all 3 months Mary stayed with Elizabeth (Luke 1:56--And Mary remained with her about three months, and returned to her house), did Elizabeth and Zacharias go around bumping into Mary because they couldn't see her? Did Joseph make her wear a bell so he could know where she was? In fact, how did ANYBODY, in all the 9 months she was pregnant, not see her?
EBW's comment seems to include quite a bit of mysticism, especially the last part, about how after she gave birth, Then Mary with a sort of unveiled Virginity could be seen in the light of the fullness of times.
Yeah, about that--Uh.......what?
On a side note, I remember watching a debate btw Dr. White and either Gerry matatics or Robert Sungensis (I forget which), where the RCC apologist made the correlation btw Solomon giving his mother a throne, and the time when Jesus says of Himself, "One greater than Solomon is here," saying that since Solomon gave HIS mother a throne, and "One greater than Solomon is here," that this was somehow a parallel.
That got me thinking (dangerous territory for me, yeah). Since Solomon had 1000 wives and concubines, doesn't this give weight to the Mormon argument that Mary and Martha were Jesus' wives? I mean, since Solomon had all those women, and "One greater than Solomon is here"......well, do the math.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
Amen.
Post a Comment