FK backs this up by making the amazing comment : "You did when you said: "Who is going to have sex with another person's wife? Not a normal person." Who is the other person, if you don't mean God?
I'm speaking about Mary being married to Joseph! Who is going to have sex with Joseph's wife? How in God's name did you ever think that I said Mary was married to God??? Wow! Weren't we talking about Mary and Joseph and why they got married?
And please speak for yourself on "things to do" when we reach 70. :)
How old are you?
Yes, it sure does [Mary and Joseph had sex], and I still don't see why this is the end of the world for you, especially since you appear now NOT to think of Mary as Mrs. God. :)
Oh brother. This from a Sola Scriptura charecter? Where does it say that "Joseph knew Mary"? Don't go beyond what the Scriptures say - what ever happened to that?
Mary asks how can this be since "I AM a virgin" or "I have known not a man". Mary does not say since "I am PLEDGED to be a virgin (forever)".
Sure. Woman who are betrothed to be married always asks such questions like "duh, how am I going to have a child - I am going to be wed soon..." What sort of arguement is that? The response of Mary would be "Wow, that's wonderful. Thanks and praise to God". Not "how can that be...?" A person in a normal relationship does not ask how a child will come into existence...
And the question for you - why are you arguing this point anyway? Does it crush a Protestant belief or do you just enjoy arguing about Christ's Mother?
Regards
LOL! I like the color commentary in the set-up :) Anyway, well if that's what you meant, then what was your point in rhetorically asking "who would sleep with another man's wife" in the first place? I was just trying to derive what your point was. I still don't know.
How old are you?
I am thirty-something for 23 more days. :) or should that be :(
(By my comment, I just meant that I had plans. :)
Oh brother. This from a Sola Scriptura character? Where does it say that "Joseph knew Mary"? Don't go beyond what the Scriptures say - what ever happened to that?
"Oh brother" is right on point! :) The scriptures say that Jesus had named brothers, sisters, a named mother, and a father, all within two verses (Matt. 13:55-56). I understand that the plain meaning of these verses must be interpreted away by the Church to preserve Tradition. I would not even know how to argue that they "knew" each other, outside of scripture. That is, unless common sense counts as an argument. If common sense was an argument then it would also be my ally.
Woman who are betrothed to be married always asks such questions like "duh, how am I going to have a child - I am going to be wed soon..." What sort of argument is that? The response of Mary would be "Wow, that's wonderful. Thanks and praise to God". Not "how can that be...?" A person in a normal relationship does not ask how a child will come into existence...
You think that's what Mary's response would be. Really? How many young women do you suppose expected angels to appear before them announcing a coming birth? Even if Mary was intimately familiar with scriptures she would know this was not an every day occurrence. I find it absolutely incredible that she would have reacted matter-of-factly. You don't appear to accept that the passage says she was afraid. I would have been too!
As I have said, if an angel appeared before me, my gut reaction would be that whatever the announcement was, would be happening sooner rather than at some indeterminate time in the future. IOW, why appear now to tell me this if you're talking about a year from now, or whatever? I would presume there would be a purpose to the timing.
And the question for you - why are you arguing this point anyway? Does it crush a Protestant belief or do you just enjoy arguing about Christ's Mother?
That's a fair question, and frankly, I really don't have a dog in this fight. If the Bible said anywhere that Mary was ever-virgin that would be fine with me. I don't know that it would challenge any of my other beliefs. However, I am always interested in learning more examples of when the words of scripture are suppressed in favor of a Traditional position. If I had never heard of this as an issue of contention and just read the scriptures, there would be no doubt in my mind that Jesus had blood siblings. And I claim that is a genuine statement because I don't need it to prove or support anything else. I don't "care" one way or the other. But the Church must care, so it must defend another interpretation that is contrary to the plain meaning of the words.