Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: ctdonath2; don-o
You and I are in strong agreement with an overall view of marriage, which is indeed sanctified, consecrated by Divine and Natural Law to the durable union of the spouses and the procreation of children. On that you'll find no dissent from me or (I hope) from any Christian.

The instance we're talking about, though, is not "overall," but is specific; and not just "specific" but, more than that, an absolute singularity: never happened in the Universe before, and will never happen again: the case of the one woman hailed with the unheard-of and noble title Kecharitomene ("All-Filled with Grace") by an angel and who consented to the procreative act by which God was made Man.

If such acts even between two humans are holy --- which we agree they are --- then this indescribable procreation between God and a human woman, must be incomparably more sacred.

Humans procreate children who are (even though flawed by having a sin-marred human nature) bearers of the image and likeness of God. But Mary was wed, not by a man coming into her, but by the Holy Spirit coming upon her (in the Archangel's words) --- are you saying this would create a bond inferior in strength, durability, or significance to the bond between mere human procreative partners?

Really?

Don't we see great signs in Scripture that this Divine-human procreative espousal created a lasting bond?

Note how the first Pentecost came precisely when Mary and the Apostles were gathered in the Upper Room. Now they were all, --- accompanying the espoused Mary --- filled with the Holy Spirit!

The Bride Unwed has a bond to the Holy Spirit: one of total consecration. This deserves to be thought upon with care. Note how at the end of time (Rev 22:17) you catch yet another glimpse of this enduring nuptial bond: "The Spirit and the Bride say, Come!"

"And let him who hears, say Come!"

110 posted on 12/10/2012 9:08:56 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("He Whom the whole world cannot contain, was enclosed within thy womb, O Virgin, and became Man.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]


To: Mrs. Don-o

“who consented”

She didn’t have a choice.

And Joseph was her rightful husband, in no way denied his right to her.


112 posted on 12/10/2012 9:12:33 AM PST by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies ]

To: Mrs. Don-o

What, she was an adulteress for marrying Joseph?
A marriage without consummation isn’t.


113 posted on 12/10/2012 9:14:58 AM PST by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson