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.
The point is that the Temple had given the young Mary to Joseph so as to protect her virginity. (by the way, Joseph was NOT rich, if you read the Protoevangelium, Mary's FATHER was "exceedingly rich" in the very first sentence). Mary was given to Joseph by lot. So who would have had sex with Mary, but an adulterer who was exceedingly wicked, knowing the history of Mary's virginity and being brought up in the Temple, and then given to Joseph to protect.
The scriptures say that Jesus had named brothers, sisters, a named mother, and a father, all within two verses
Without a further extensive re-visitation, Hebrew does not have a word for "cousin". ONLY one person is said to be the child of Mary. The Protoevangelium calls these other children of Joseph BEFORE Mary was given to Joseph by the Temple priests. The Scripture does NOT claim that Joseph and Mary had sex...
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!
I have no doubts she was afraid. But really, "how can this be" is not the answer one would give IF someone was intending on having sexual relationships soon...
If the Bible said anywhere that Mary was ever-virgin that would be fine with me
The Bible doesn't make a claim in either direction, so why argue against it? Oh, yea, because Catholics say it was so...
However, I am always interested in learning more examples of when the words of scripture are suppressed in favor of a Traditional position
Suppressed? What verse is suppressed as a result of saying Mary was ever-virgin? The explanation given are perfectly acceptable, ancient, and do not damage the Scriptures. You want something damaging to Scriptures? How about Sola Scriptura? How deep have you tried to twist that one, but yet produced nothing? Not a single bit of evidence...
Regards