The song of Mary- an unorthodox perspective

[VictoryinJesus]

Fair questions.

Let's say you and your husband are the characters. Except he's not your husband yet. You are engaged to be married and he has this dream wherein he is aware (in the dream) that you are pregnant.... VERY pregnant, like 9 months pregnant. And in the dream, he has a mind to call off the wedding, to call off the engagement and walk away. And in the dream he considers all this. Does that make sense?

But then, that same night-- or sometime later while he remains disturbed by all that above-- he has another dream. And in that dream an angel comes and talks to him and the angel says- 'Don't be afraid to take her as your wife. She really is going to get pregnant-- take her as your wife (HAVE SEX-- it's what take her as your wife means) and she will indeed bear you a son... a descendant through you and your line-- through David, through Judah and so on.....

So he did. When he awoke-- he did as the angel had told him to do and he went and took her as his wife. And they didn't enjoy any subsequent marital relations until after the baby was born.

I suspect your apprehension is not with scripture, but with the narrative you've been taught to believe.

I concede. My apprehension is there is so much input from all around that you get to where …you don’t know who to believe.

 

[Waiting on him]

Exactly. That is the point. If he does indeed know what happens during consummation. Then why the shock. I think of Joseph’s brothers in the OT. They were told they would bow. Would NT Joseph not know the nature of dreams as prophetic and the first thought be “Hey. It is prophesied I will consummate with my betrothed, and God will bless us with a baby!”

Instead …how can I put her away secretly with shaming her.

That’s just the thing there was no light in men prior to Jesus coming into the world. Joseph didn’t understand the dream….. so the Angel came again and made things very clear———- take her unto yourself!
Don’t be afraid you’ll break gods law and be punished by the critics.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Not OTHER than consummation. In addition to consummation.

No consummation? She's not yet your wife. Read Levitical law.

Actually - Thomas Aquinas addressed this in his Summa Theologiae (cf. ST III:29:2).

Basically, a marriage is valid as long as the two parties exchange valid matrimonial consent. This involves , the exchange of a right to conjugal relations with the spouse. The intent to exercise that right is NOT required for the consent to be valid.

So, according to the standard account, Joseph and Mary's marriage WAS valid because the right was exchanged even though it was not intended by either party to be used.

 

[Mr E]

I concede. My apprehension is there is so much input from all around that you get to where …you don’t know who to believe.

If you can be patient with yourself and step back from it a bit, and set aside those things that people have told you MUST be true.... then you have a chance of seeing something so beautiful. So remarkable. It rings true because it is true. It doesn't have these glaring problems and contradictions.... Believing one thing doesn't require you to ignore or negate something else.

You don't have to pretend anymore. Joseph is listed as the daddy in the record, because he is the daddy.

I've said this elsewhere, but I'll say it again here. God is not a trickster. He doesn't violate his own nature. Babies are born when a woman conceives and when her egg is fertilized by his sperm. That's where descendants come from. The record in Matthew matters because it verifies that Jesus is a descendant of David and of the tribe of Judah as was promised the coming messiah would be.

The virgin Mary story is beautiful if appreciated for what it is and not made into something strange. You know, there are those for whom even that much embellishment wasn't enough. They will insist that Mary was a perpetual virgin, that she was sinless, and that she ascended to heaven herself. These are the very same people who taught the immaculate conception.

 

[Waiting on him]

Actually - Thomas Aquinas addressed this in his Summa Theologiae (cf. ST III:29:2).

Basically, a marriage is valid as long as the two parties exchange valid matrimonial consent. This involves , the exchange of a right to conjugal relations with the spouse. The intent to exercise that right is NOT required for the consent to be valid.

So, according to the standard account, Joseph and Mary's marriage WAS valid because the right was exchanged even though it was not intended by either party to be used.

Tom wasn’t even born till the 13nth century

 

[Mr E]

Actually - Thomas Aquinas addressed this in his Summa Theologiae (cf. ST III:29:2).

Basically, a marriage is valid as long as the two parties exchange valid matrimonial consent. This involves , the exchange of a right to conjugal relations with the spouse. The intent to exercise that right is NOT required for the consent to be valid.

So, according to the standard account, Joseph and Mary's marriage WAS valid because the right was exchanged even though it was not intended by either party to be used.

I literally could not care less what Thomas Aquinas wrote.

If the priesthood or the Vatican is your authority on marriage or sex (one of which they don't do) - good luck with life.

Marriage is the UNION between a man and a woman.... be fruitful and multiply.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Tom wasn’t even born till the 13nth century

And Al Einstein wasn't born until the 19th century - but look at all of the things HE explained . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I literally could not care less what Thomas Aquinas wrote.

If the priesthood or the Vatican is your authority on marriage or sex (one of which they don't do) - good luck with life.

He researched the possibilities within Judaism and came to this conclusion.
It wasn't a fleeting thought from the top of his head like YOURS is.

 

[Waiting on him]

He researched the possibilities within Judaism and came to this conclusion.
It wasn't a fleeting thought from the top of his head like YOURS is.

Luke 20:30 KJV
[30] And the second took her to wife, and he died childless.
Why are these silly Pharisees associating the word took with children, and seed?

 

[Waiting on him]

He researched the possibilities within Judaism and came to this conclusion.
It wasn't a fleeting thought from the top of his head like YOURS is.

Are you a priest?

 

[BreadOfLife]

The virgin Mary story is beautiful if appreciated for what it is and not made into something strange. You know, there are those for whom even that much embellishment wasn't enough. They will insist that Mary was a perpetual virgin, that she was sinless, and that she ascended to heaven herself. These are the very same people who taught the immaculate conception.

Whereas a case for Mary's Immaculate Conception can be made from Scripture - your comment in RED is a complete and total LIE.
This is NOT what the Church teaches or has ever taught.

Do your homework . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Luke 20:30 KJV
[30] And the second took her to wife, and he died childless.
Why are these silly Pharisees associating the word took with children, and seed?

Because, Einstein - there is a different Greek word being used there.
The word used in Luke 20:30 is lam-ban'-o, which means to "take hold of", "to carry away."

They DIDN'T speak in KJV Englilsh . . .

 

[Mr E]

Whereas a case for Mary's Immaculate Conception can be made from Scripture - your comment in RED is a complete and total LIE.
This is NOT what the Church teaches or has ever taught.

Do your homework . . .

Take your dogma outside before someone steps in it.

We proclaim and define it to be a dogma revealed by God that the immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever virgin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven

 

[Waiting on him]

Because, Einstein - there is a different Greek word being used there.
The word used in Luke 20:30 is lam-ban'-o, which means to "take hold of", "to carry away."

They DIDN'T speak in KJV Englilsh . . .

Oh I see.. I need 2000 years of monks to define to me what I can see the squirrels in the back yard performing.

 

[Johann]

Sooooo, do you have a problem with the virgin-birth because there is "insufficient" evidence for it?

You hit the nail right on the proverbial head--the virgin birth is not a virgin birth after all--not according to @Mr E gospel.

 

[Mr E]

You hit the nail right on the proverbial head--the virgin birth is not a virgin birth after all--not according to @Mr E gospel.

That’s another lie from your lips Johann. You have a real struggle with truth.

I said clearly that Mary was a virgin until her wedding night. The virgin pregnancy is scriptural. Immaculate conception without Joseph’s involvement is nonsense.

 

[Johann]

I said clearly that Mary was a virgin until her wedding night.

Not the way you explained it in your post brother--and that Joseph is the real father of Jesus--unless I have read that part wrong?

3) "Before they came together," (prin e sunelthein autous) "Preceding, before, or prior to their becoming one together" in physical affinity, of conjugal sex relations."....

4) "She was found with child of the Holy Ghost." (heurethe in gastri echous ek pnematos hagiou) "She came to be (and was) pregnant in her womb, of or by means of, the Holy Spirit;”

This is the identical means by which the angel Gabriel had foretold Mary that she would become with child, of the Holy Ghost, Luk_1:26-27; Luk_1:30-35. This Holy Spirit begettal and virgin birth conception, is God’s Supernatural method by which Jesus could become:
1) The seed of the woman, Gen_3:15.
2) Virgin born, Isa_7:14.
3) Of the seed of David – “according to the flesh,” Rom_1:3.
4) “Made of a woman, Gal_4:4-5; 1Ti_3:16. This is a true, trustworthy, incontestable record of Divine Incarnation.

2) "How shall this be," (pos estai touto) "How will this be," or come to exist. The question was asked, not out of doubt or unbelief, such as Zacharias had done when told of the coming birth of John the Baptist, but for clarifying life purposes, for the mind of Mary. The "How question" was a biological one, and surely the giver and sustainer of life provided the answer to Gabriel.


3) "Seeing I know not a man?" (epei andra ou ginosko) "Since I know not a man;" Mary first affirmed her virginity to the angel Gabriel, who recognized the factual honesty of her testimony, though engaged or espoused to Joseph, she had remained a virgin, to fulfill prophecy, Isa_7:14.
The biological question receives a biological explanation, based on the movement of the Holy Spirit, the giver of life, upon and within her, as follows and certified, Joh_6:63; 2Co_3:6, which reads, "The spirit giveth life."

--but here we don't deal with a biological question @Mr E --and I don't appreciate being called a liar--not when it comes to the written word, I appreciate correction, but this is not how I read the Ha-Almah account.


1) "And the angel answered and said unto her," (kai apokritheis ho angelos eipen aute) "And replying, the angel said to her," to her earnest and honest inquiry, not only for her benefit but also for that of all men for all times to follow, to explain how Jesus could be born free from sin, Heb_7:26.

2) "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee," (pneuma hagion epeleusetai epi se) "The Holy Spirit will come upon you," brood over you, as He did to bring form, order, and life to the present creation, Gen_1:2-3; Job_26:13; Job_33:4; Psa_104:30.

3) "And the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee," (kai dunamis hupsostou episkaisei sli) "And the dynamic power of the most High will overshadow you," the energy power of the Godhead (the Holy Spirit) who is active in all creation and giving and sustaining of life, will gently come over you like a cloud.

4) "Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee:" (dio ksi to gennomenon hagion) "Wherefore, or as a result also, the Holy one being born "to you," under these Spirit controlled and veiled conditions, Mat_1:18-25.

5) "Shall be called the Son of God." (klethesetai huios theos) "Will be called the Son of God," Miraculously born, Mat_4:3; Mar_1:11; Rom_1:4, for He was and is," Joh_3:16; For this is the "how" that God's Son was "made of woman," the "seed of woman," for redemptive purposes, Gen_3:15; Gal_4:4-5; 1Ti_3:16. The birth of the second Adam need not seem strange any more than the creation of the first Adam.

Remember--"before they came together--" Mary was already with Child--somewhat different from your account.

 

[Mr E]

The kitchen is closed.

But there are many similar ideas that formulate beliefs people hold without great reasons. They cling to these ideas as of their lives depended on them, or their very salvation. And when those beliefs are examined, they often don’t hold up under scrutiny. They often conflict with scripture and or other “ideas” those same people hold.

Most often they are not bad people. They just have bad ideas. Misunderstandings and bad teachings and endless regurgitation of the same.

Maybe we could look at some of these in another thread. Questions that pose as puzzles or just don’t quite make sense. Sacred cows that people don’t want touched.

Ending my participation in this thread. It’s run its course. Thanks to all who contributed thoughts.

It was a good discussion.

 

[Johann]

The kitchen is closed.

But there are many similar ideas that formulate beliefs people hold without great reasons. They cling to these ideas as of their lives depended on them, or their very salvation. And when those beliefs are examined, they often don’t hold up under scrutiny. They often conflict with scripture and or other “ideas” those same people hold.

Most often they are not bad people. They just have bad ideas. Misunderstandings and bad teachings and endless regurgitation of the same.

Maybe we could look at some of these in another thread. Questions that pose as puzzles or just don’t quite make sense. Sacred cows that people don’t want touched.

Ending my participation in this thread. It’s run its course. Thanks to all who contributed thoughts.

It was a good discussion.

It was a good discussion--my apologies for coming on a bit strong to you brother.
J.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Take your dogma outside before someone steps in it.

We proclaim and define it to be a dogma revealed by God that the immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever virgin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven

Looks like YOU already did.

Jesus ascended into Heaven – by His OWN power.
Mary, like Enoch and Elijah, was assumed by the power of God.

Learn the difference before embarrassing yourself any further . . .