Mary, who was well aware of all of this history, nevertheless professes herself troubled and perplexed as to how this promised son could ever be engendered in her. Why would she not simply suppose that she'd get pregnant with her husband, just like the other holy mothers in Israel got pregnant with their husbands?
(2)Old Testament typology concerning the Ark of the Covenant and Mary (Theotokos). The Ark of the Covenant held the most sacred items of the Jewish faith: manna from the desert, the tablets of the 10 Commandment (the Law) and Aaron’s staff (Aaron was from the priestly tribe, so this was the staff of the priest, a shepherd for the people).
The Old Ark held the manna; Mary, the New Ark holds the Bread of Life. The Old Ark held the Law; Mary, the new Ark holds the Lawgiver and the very fulfillment of the Law. The Old Ark held the priestly staff; Mary, the New Ark holds the high priest, the Good Shepherd who pastors all souls.
No one was allowed to touch the Ark of the Covenant. The ark was pure (untouched). Mary the new Ark is pure, untouched. The Church teaches that she is ever-virgin, a vessel of purity.
(3) It's repugnant, and against the character of God, that He would initiate the Holy Incarnation of the Word by taking another man's wife --- if Mary were exclusively vowed to Joseph procreatively, as all other wives are to their husbands. If this were the way it happened, it would not a manifestation of God's infinite moral excellence. This would have been a defrauding of Joseph, a violation of the exclusivity of Mary and Joseph's marriage covenant: cuckoldry.
I'm saying God would not bump aside a natural husband who had an exclusive right to his wife's procreative future. Is this view in the NT?? Brother, this is the entire Bible: God's way is the honoring, not the violation, of holy covenants.
You can assert there's "nothing" to support the claim of Mary's pledged virginity --- her faithful and prior understanding that she belonged to God alone, God, the father of her Son --- only by failing to deeply consider the evidence.
Ignoring everything that supports the claim is not a persuasive strategy.
“her faithful and prior understanding that she belonged to God alone, God, the father of her Son.”
This isn’t in Scripture, nor is there evidence it was taught by any Apostle, nor believed by any Christian before 100 ad.
It is made up later, as paganism was integrated into the Roman church.
I guess this completely discounts that she and Joseph were engaged???? She was committed to Joseph prior to being chosen to be the mother of Christ. Unless somehow the Catholic redefines prior.
The passage in Luke when she asks Gabriel how will this be since I know not a man...that is "I haven't had sex with anyone"....is not a pledge of perpetual virginity...at least to those who understand the Greek.
No one was allowed to touch the Ark of the Covenant. The ark was pure (untouched). Mary the new Ark is pure, untouched. The Church teaches that she is ever-virgin, a vessel of purity.
This is why analogy is not a sound basis for theology. It leads to this kind of false teaching which in in contradiction of the texts themselves.
Mary, who was well aware of all of this history, nevertheless professes herself troubled and perplexed as to how this promised son could ever be engendered in her. Why would she not simply suppose that she'd get pregnant with her husband, just like the other holy mothers in Israel got pregnant with their husbands?
She reacted this way because, unlike the other women who knew they'd had sex with their husbands, Mary had not. Add in to this and you've got an angel telling her this. Hence her confusion on the "how" this would happen.
She understood biology and how to make babies.
CLAIMING a bunch of assertions of unrelated things being linked together is no way to establish doctrine.
Well; considering what she was TOLD...
Luke 1:26-38
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth,
27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.
30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.
31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.
33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?
35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren:
37 Because no word shall be impossible with God.
38 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
Mary already was troubled by the angel from the get-go. Then she hears some wild sounding prediction in verse 32.
And you are expecting her to think clearly at this point in time and ask RATIONAL questions of the angel?
1) Because Mary had not yet consummated her marriage. The other women had. Nor were they told that what was concieved in them was from the Holy Spirit.
2) There’s not a shred of evidence that the Ark of the Covenant ever referred to Mary.
3) An argument based on “if” is meaningless. God did not choose to reveal to us HOW He did the Incarnation, but the fact remains that He DID use a man’s legal wife and clearly, since God indeed would not do anything immoral, there was nothing immoral about His actions. Therefore your argument from that angle is invalid.
There is NOTHING at all in Scripture to support Mary’s claimed pledged virginity. It’s downright ludicrous to think that a three year old knows enough about sex to take a vow of chastity or virginity, and then to claim that a girl who took a vow like that went and got legally married?!?!?!
Ridiciluous!!!!
And the argument about her doing it so she’d be taken care of falls flat as well. If she had remained single, her family would have taken care of her.
She didn’t need to enter a sham invalid ( according to the Catholic church) marriage for that purpose.
By doing so, you all are also claiming that Mary conspired with Joseph to deceive others in her family and commuinty into thinking that Mary was his wife and Jesus was their child.
The Jews in that day DID NOT KNOW who Jesus was. They thought He was simply the carpenter’s son, which is recorded in Scripture and that is why they were so confused about what was happening.
And there we have it.
The teaching that sex is sinful.
After all, if Joseph had touched her, had sex with her, she wouldn't be pure anymore.
And there we have it.
The teaching that sex is sinful.
After all, if Joseph had touched her, had sex with her, she wouldn't be pure anymore.