Posted on 11/26/2022 12:02:43 PM PST by ebb tide
Ebb, all I hear you whining is that you are unfamiliar with Scripture and can’t be bothered to get acquainted.
Your call.
That was St. Paul writing to Christians long after the Crucifixion & Resurrection.
Was it retroactively binding on Mary over 30 years before?
Nice question…
Yes, under inspiration by the Holy Spirit, God moved Paul to write the passage.
It was not a new revelation of God’s design for married couples. Nor is God bound by time. All Scripture is inspired and a reflection of the person and will of God.
Starting at creation and onward through Scripture, God stated the two would become one flesh within marriage. That they were to take sexual delight in their spouse alone.
What a gift!
“Imbibe, O lovers.”
Best.
Even Joseph didn't think that about Mary after the angel appeared to him in a dream (Matthew 1:18-20).
No friend. I believe Mary knew the scriptures as a Jew, starting in Genesis.
As a Virgin, she obeyed God with gratitude to bear Messiah.
After birth, there would never be another virgin birth - nor a need, since Scripture had been fulfilled.
Mary afterwards also fulfilled her marriage covenant to Joseph, or acted against the expressed will of God through all Scripture, starting with creation.
Or she disobeyed God’s purpose and expressed will for sex in marriage.
We know little of Mary, but we know she was submissive, obedient to God, and keenly desirous to glorify Him.
And if you choose to deny it, you open a whole Pandora’s box where you will make your argue from silence. I do not find arguments from silence convincing.
If you go down the path of a disobedient Mary, that’s your call.
PS - And she liked it, bearing many more children.
(Pinging two believers who have participated in this topic before, to see if they want to contribute)
—> Matthew 1:22–25 (WUESTNT): And Joseph, having awakened from his sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him. And he took to himself his wife, and lived in absolute continence with her until she gave birth to a son. And he called His name Jesus.
“Until”
“And Joseph, having awakened from his sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him. And he took to himself his wife, and lived in absolute continence with her until she gave birth to a son.“
… but afterwards, whoa!
Little humor break to lighten the mood.
No doubt.
And that passage does not support that assertion.
The angel told Joseph to take Mary AS HIS WIFE.
None of this *spouse of the Holy Spirit* nonsense.
And if he were to keep Mary perpetually virgin, no doubt he would have been instructed to do so instead of being told to take her as his WIFE, with all that includes.
Once the prophecy of the virgin birth had been fulfilled, there was simply no reaosn for Mary to remain a virgin.
My Post #64 said
? "And what's this bit about they were to take sexual delight in their spouse alone.
Even Joseph didn't think that about Mary after the angel appeared to him in a dream (Matthew 1:18-20)."
And you wrote:
"And that passage does not support that assertion."
Verses 18-19 say:
but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and was unwilling to disgrace her publicly, he resolved to divorce her quietly.
So, initially, Joseph thought she'd been sleeping with somebody else and got knocked up.
Then verse 20 says "20But after he had pondered these things, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to embrace Mary as your wife, for the One conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit."
So, after the angel appeared to him in the dream, Joseph stopped thinking Mary had slept with someone else.
The verse not only supports that assertion, it says it in black and white as plain as day.
None of this *spouse of the Holy Spirit* nonsense.
An honorific, BECAUSE her child was conceived by the Holy Spirit.
And if he were to keep Mary perpetually virgin, no doubt he would have been instructed to do so instead of being told to take her as his WIFE, with all that includes.
Saying that on your *own* authority. Believing it in your heart is one thing, promulgating it as doctrine on your own authority is quite another.
Once the prophecy of the virgin birth had been fulfilled, there was simply no reaosn for Mary to remain a virgin.
According to the flesh, assuming her to be just like everyone else, no.
It all comes back to Sola Scriptura (and usually, dismissal of any visions / prophecy / etc. past the date of completion of Scripture) vs. the living and active life of the Church and its role in guiding and formulating doctrine and purging heresy.
Most of the "standard theology" (e.g. Nicene Creed, Apostle's Creed) is taken as given by Protestants despite its having been formulated by the Church after the era of the written epistles.
An honorific never given by God...
Which is true.
However, he still hook her as his wife as commanded and only kept her a virgin until after Christ was born. After that, they were husband and wife with all that entails.
If Mary were the spouse of the Holy Spirit then why would the angel have commanded Joseph to take her as his wife?
When did that marriage ceremony take place?
By commanding that Joseph take another’s wife, that would have made both of them commit adultery. You mean God commanded Joseph and Mary to sin?
That's a pretty odd thing to say given that you believe Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. The action means much more than the after-the-fact honorific.
"Henceforth all nations shall call me blessed" is a non-trivial claim.
Maybe you never thought of this, but naming Mary the Bride of the Holy Spirit kind of emphasizes that Jesus was not the son of Joseph.
Bet Bergoglio's cool with that.
Scripture never names Mary as “the bride of the Holy Spirit”.
And addressing Jesus’s character and nature is best done by proper and appropriate Scriptural teaching about HIM, not renaming Mary, which makes it all about HER.
Chapter and verse.
Otherwise, you’re blowing smoke, as usual.
So what?
And addressing Jesus’s character and nature is best done by proper and appropriate Scriptural teaching about HIM, not renaming Mary, which makes it all about HER.
No it doesn't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.