It agrees with the scripture in providing a narrative where behavior of Mary and Joseph begins to make sense. I gave you one example: the phrase “I know not man” is not understandable unless you realize that the nature of her betrothal to Joseph was that of a temple virgin not intending to have children. That is a single most important fact not directly contained in the Bible.
Nowhere in YHvH commandments nor Temple virgins ONLY occur in PAGAN Very interesting statement.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
followers are there "temple virgins".
religions such as the Roman "church"
What temple virgins? Mary’s comment at Luke 1:34 was a statement that she had not had intercourse, had carnal knowledge, with a man so how was this pregnancy to occur. Her question has nothing to with imaginary temple virgins despite Marshall’s blog and misinformation (to be gentle).
Both Mary and Joseph’s conduct is quite understndable without resorting to these tales like the Evangelium. Mary as some sort of temple virgin is a fable pulled from the air. Not one word in the inspired account suggests such a thing. But temple virgins did exist for the pagans.
What temple virgins? Mary’s comment at Luke 1:34 was a statement that she had not had intercourse, had carnal knowledge, with a man so how was this pregnancy to occur. Her question has nothing to with imaginary temple virgins despite Marshall’s blog and misinformation (to be gentle).
Both Mary and Joseph’s conduct is quite understndable without resorting to these tales like the Evangelium. Mary as some sort of temple virgin is a fable pulled from the air. Not one word in the inspired account suggests such a thing. But temple virgins did exist for the pagans.