Mary, Salvation, and Sin Offering

[annsni]

A thousand years after Jesus walked this earth? Funny, but the historical record I know about disputes your claim. So come on, I'd like to see your proof of this.

Oh sorry. It was 1854 when it was declared a doctrine by the infallible pope. No pope before this considered doing so. I wonder why?

St. Thomas Aquinas said, "If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never been stained with the contagion of original sin, this would have detracted from Christ's dignity as the savior of all men."

Finally, Edward O'Connor, who has written a defense of the doctrine has even stated in his book on the subject that the doctrine was not a tradition of the early church and didn't actually really come about until 1100 AD.

 

[JonC]

Adonia, please do not take my brusqueness as me being mean to you. If I did not love you, I would leave you alone. But being a preacher of God's word, it's my bounden duty to proclaim Christ to you. ...Please wake up my dear. Please wake up.

It's time you leave that error filled form of Christianity you now follow and come to worship at the Holy Church Jesus set up on this earth. Jesus is with us, especially in the Holy Eucharist, and He awaits your coming home to Him.

Please consider and comply.
http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/explanation-on-proselytizing.10603/

 

[Adonia]

Please consider and comply.
http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/explanation-on-proselytizing.10603/

I see, certain people here can constantly demean my Christian faith tradition by making scurrilous charges and accusations, but I cannot respond in a somewhat likewise manner. I understand the situation perfectly.

 

[JonC]

I see, certain people here can constantly demean my Christian faith tradition by making scurrilous charges and accusations, but I cannot respond in a somewhat likewise manner. I understand the situation perfectly.

I don't think you do.

I was addressing both you and Sovereign Grace, and I certainly did not mean to be doing so disrespectfully.

There have been excellent debates and conversations between Protestants and Catholics which have been fruitful at least to an extent in understanding the other's position (granted, probably not so much here).

Regardless, both of you are calling the other out of what you deem a false faith. If you, honestly, think that this is anything other than questioning the validity of another's faith or calling them out of that faith...just point me to that misunderstanding. Feel free to voice my error here or via PM. Until that time I am calling it like I see it. Both of you are questioning each other's faith, both of you are calling the other out of that faith, and both of you are violating the rules of the BB. You are just doing it in a more civil and articulate manner.

 

[Adonia]

annsni said:
It was 1854 when it was declared a doctrine by the infallible pope. No pope before this considered doing so. I wonder why


Finally, Edward O'Connor, who has written a defense of the doctrine has even stated in his book on the subject that the doctrine was not a tradition of the early church and didn't actually really come about until 1100 AD.[/QUOTE]


My mistake, I thought you were talking about something else completely, not just this particular doctrine. You are correct, the doctrine was proclaimed when you said, but this idea had been bandied about since the early centuries of the Church. Here are but a few quotes from the Bishops of that time period.

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22, 30 {A.D. 388}.

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me {ante A.D. 235).

"The very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.” Jacob of Sarug {ante A.D. 521}.ivinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin 71:216 {ante AD 373}.

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1{A.D. 244).

With what St. Thomas Aquinas said and the opposite opinion by others in the church, that is probably why it was finally made a doctrine.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

annsni said:

It was 1854 when it was declared a doctrine by the infallible pope. No pope before this considered doing so. I wonder why

Finally, Edward O'Connor, who has written a defense of the doctrine has even stated in his book on the subject that the doctrine was not a tradition of the early church and didn't actually really come about until 1100 AD.

My mistake, I thought you were talking about something else completely, not just this particular doctrine. You are correct, the doctrine was proclaimed when you said, but this idea had been bandied about since the early centuries of the Church. Here are but a few quotes from the Bishops of that time period.

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22, 30 {A.D. 388}.

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me {ante A.D. 235).

"The very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.” Jacob of Sarug {ante A.D. 521}.ivinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin 71:216 {ante AD 373}.

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1{A.D. 244).

With what St. Thomas Aquinas said and the opposite opinion by others in the church, that is probably why it was finally made a doctrine.

Very interesting. Except that none of these quotations say anything at all about the assumption of Mary into heaven, nor about her perpetual virginity.
But where are these doctrines in the Bible?
Also, why would Mary have been somehow less pure and less worthy if she had had marital relations with Joseph after the birth of our Saviour, as the Scriptures so clearly indicate (Matthew 1:24-25; Mark 6:3)?

 

[Adonia]

Very interesting. Except that none of these quotations say anything at all about the assumption of Mary into heaven, nor about her perpetual virginity.
But where are these doctrines in the Bible?
Also, why would Mary have been somehow less pure and less worthy if she had had marital relations with Joseph after the birth of our Saviour, as the Scriptures so clearly indicate (Matthew 1:24-25; Mark 6:3)?

Where are these doctrines in the Bible? Not everything that happened was written down (according to the Scriptures themselves). The Scriptures do not clearly indicate that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Jesus. Maybe she did, but there is no unequivocal words to that effect. Maybe their marriage wasn't "consummated" either as that is something pretty personal between man and wife so how would the writer have known either way? As for brothers and sisters, this could be interpreted in different ways. People back then called each other their "brothers and sisters" even though they weren't just like you call your fellow believers or they could have been his step-brothers and step sisters, children that Joseph had from a previous marriage. Is all this some sort of salvation issue anyway? Nope.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Where are these doctrines in the Bible? Not everything that happened was written down (according to the Scriptures themselves). The Scriptures do not clearly indicate that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Jesus. Maybe she did, but there is no unequivocal words to that effect. Maybe their marriage wasn't "consummated" either as that is something pretty personal between man and wife so how would the writer have known either way? As for brothers and sisters, this could be interpreted in different ways. People back then called each other their "brothers and sisters" even though they weren't just like you call your fellow believers or they could have been his step-brothers and step sisters, children that Joseph had from a previous marriage. Is all this some sort of salvation issue anyway? Nope.

Well, what do the Scriptures say? 'When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus' (Matthew 1:24-25, NIV). 'UNTIL.' Matthew was pretty much in a position to know since he would have known our Lord's brothers and sisters.

You ask, is it 'some sort of salvation issue'? Well you tell me. You're the one with an infallible 'Pope.' He has decreed it, so if you were to deny it, how would that work out for you?

This is all part of the wretched early medieval view that chastity is somehow a higher calling than a married life and parenthood. It has called untold misery and sin within the Church of Rome. 'Now the overseer [Greek episcopos, 'Bishop'] must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife' (1 Timothy 3:2).

 

[SovereignGrace]

annsni said:
It was 1854 when it was declared a doctrine by the infallible pope. No pope before this considered doing so. I wonder why


Finally, Edward O'Connor, who has written a defense of the doctrine has even stated in his book on the subject that the doctrine was not a tradition of the early church and didn't actually really come about until 1100 AD.

My mistake, I thought you were talking about something else completely, not just this particular doctrine. You are correct, the doctrine was proclaimed when you said, but this idea had been bandied about since the early centuries of the Church. Here are but a few quotes from the Bishops of that time period.

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22, 30 {A.D. 388}.

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me {ante A.D. 235).

"The very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.” Jacob of Sarug {ante A.D. 521}.ivinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin 71:216 {ante AD 373}.

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1{A.D. 244).

With what St. Thomas Aquinas said and the opposite opinion by others in the church, that is probably why it was finally made a doctrine.

The prime example of straying away from Sola Scriptura.

These quotes were by fallible men. Mary was not sinless.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Well, what do the Scriptures say? 'When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus' (Matthew 1:24-25, NIV). 'UNTIL.' Matthew was pretty much in a position to know since he would have known our Lord's brothers and sisters.

You ask, is it 'some sort of salvation issue'? Well you tell me. You're the one with an infallible 'Pope.' He has decreed it, so if you were to deny it, how would that work out for you?

This is all part of the wretched early medieval view that chastity is somehow a higher calling than a married life and parenthood. It has called untold misery and sin within the Church of Rome. 'Now the overseer [Greek episcopos, 'Bishop'] must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife' (1 Timothy 3:2).

If Joseph and Mary never had relations, then they were in an unbiblical marriage. Intercourse is not a sin when betwixt a man and wife in their marriage bed.

 

[JonC]

If Joseph and Mary never had relations, then they were in an unbiblical marriage. Intercourse is not a sin when betwixt a man and wife in their marriage bed.

I agree that such relations are not sinful, and of course that Joseph and Mary had relations. And, given the culture of that day, that Mary had children other than Jesus. But where do you get the idea that refraining from such relations in and of itself constitutes an "unbiblical marriage"?

 

[Zenas]

Well, what do the Scriptures say? 'When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus' (Matthew 1:24-25, NIV). 'UNTIL.' Matthew was pretty much in a position to know since he would have known our Lord's brothers and sisters.

You ask, is it 'some sort of salvation issue'? Well you tell me. You're the one with an infallible 'Pope.' He has decreed it, so if you were to deny it, how would that work out for you?

This is all part of the wretched early medieval view that chastity is somehow a higher calling than a married life and parenthood. It has called untold misery and sin within the Church of Rome. 'Now the overseer [Greek episcopos, 'Bishop'] must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife' (1 Timothy 3:2).

Mary had no other children after Jesus was born. She remained a virgin her entire life and the overwhelming evidence of this is found in Scripture, although Tradition is in full accord.

1. Scripture never says that Mary had other children. We can only infer this on account of Scriptural references to brothers and sisters of the Lord. But nowhere were they referred to as children of Mary.

2. Reference to brothers and sisters would certainly include the possibility that these people were "half siblings", i.e., children of Joseph by an earlier marriage. In fact, this belief prevailed in the early church until the time of Jerome (d. 420). Jerome concluded that these brothers and sisters were in fact cousins. In Hebrew and Aramaic there was no word for "cousin" and the relationship was either designated "brother" or it was shown by circumlocution, such as "son of my father's brother", etc. For example, Genesis 14:14 (KJV) refers to Lot as Abram's brother; in Genesis 29:15 (KJV) Laban calls Jacob his brother; in 2 Kings 10:13-14 (KJV) the 42 captives of Jehu call themselves brothers of Ahaziah. Indeed it is possible that some of the "brothers" of Jesus were half-brothers and others were cousins.

3. When the angel announced the coming birth of the King of Israel, Mary's response was, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" The implication here is that Mary had already committed herself to remain a virgin. The angel did not say when this birth was to take place and Mary was espoused to Joseph at that time. If she had planned on having sexual relations, she would be doing so shortly and it would not be a mystery how the birth was to occur. However, if she planned on remaining a virgin all her life, her question to the angel was perfectly understandable.

4. In the episode where the parents of Jesus found Him in the temple at age twelve, there is no mention of other children and if there had been other younger children they likely would have been mentioned.

5. None of the early church fathers advocated that Mary had other children. On the other hand, many of them advocated her perpetual virginity. Of particular note among this group were Jerome, Ambrose of Milan (d. 397) and Augustine (d. 430).

6. The early reformers, including Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley all advocated the perpetual virginity of Mary.

7. The strongest indicator that Mary had no other children is contained in John 19:26-27, where Jesus places the care of his mother with John. If Mary had other children, this would have been unthinkable at every level imaginable. In fact, it was when I really thought about this event that I decided Mary did not have any other children.

The only difficult Scripture for those who advocate the perpetual virginity of Mary is Matthew 1:25 ("but [Joseph] kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son"). The implication may seem to be that Joseph had sexual relations with his wife after the birth of Jesus. But the language of the Bible does not bear this out. For example, consider 1 Corinthians 15:25, "For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet." Should we infer that He ceases to reign after He has put all His enemies under His feet? Likewise, we need not infer that Joseph had sexual relations with his wife after the birth of Jesus.

 

[Zenas]

Then Stephen was not a sinner either. Acts 6:8 "And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people."

That is not a valid comparison. The Greek words used in Luke 1:28 and Acts 6:8 are totally different and imply different statuses. I think I understand the difference but I will not try to explain it here because I don't know much Greek and I don't want to be challenged by someone who does.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I agree that such relations are not sinful, and of course that Joseph and Mary had relations. And, given the culture of that day, that Mary had children other than Jesus. But where do you get the idea that refraining from such relations in and of itself constitutes an "unbiblical marriage"?

To have a marriage and no intercourse is of no difference than being roommates, imo. God gave man an 'outty' and the woman an 'inny' just for that cause. He commanded them(Adam and Eve) to be fruitful and multiply. One can not multiply without being fruitful.

Then let's appeal to Apostle Paul... Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.[1 Corinthians 7:1-7] Here you can see that Paul states that those who are married should not have control over their own bodies, but their spouse...meaning if one wants to have intercourse, the other should consent. Yet, he said it was by concession and not a command. Our bodies desire natural relations with our spouses and, just like with food, after so long without relations, it gets hungry. That's when Satan really gains traction with Christian ppl. They, their bodies I mean, have a desire that needs to be fed. This desire is only allowed in the marriage bed[Hebrews 13:4]. But if the wife, or husband, is not feeding their spouse's desire, their body is still hungry and if they aren't really careful, Satan could snatch them up in the heat of passion. That is why Paul wrote Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.[1 Corinthians 7:5]

So it is unbiblical for the man or wife to not have intercourse with their spouse.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Mary had no other children after Jesus was born. She remained a virgin her entire life and the overwhelming evidence of this is found in Scripture, although Tradition is in full accord.

1. Scripture never says that Mary had other children. We can only infer this on account of Scriptural references to brothers and sisters of the Lord. But nowhere were they referred to as children of Mary.

2. Reference to brothers and sisters would certainly include the possibility that these people were "half siblings", i.e., children of Joseph by an earlier marriage. In fact, this belief prevailed in the early church until the time of Jerome (d. 420). Jerome concluded that these brothers and sisters were in fact cousins. In Hebrew and Aramaic there was no word for "cousin" and the relationship was either designated "brother" or it was shown by circumlocution, such as "son of my father's brother", etc. For example, Genesis 14:14 (KJV) refers to Lot as Abram's brother; in Genesis 29:15 (KJV) Laban calls Jacob his brother; in 2 Kings 10:13-14 (KJV) the 42 captives of Jehu call themselves brothers of Ahaziah. Indeed it is possible that some of the "brothers" of Jesus were half-brothers and others were cousins.

3. When the angel announced the coming birth of the King of Israel, Mary's response was, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" The implication here is that Mary had already committed herself to remain a virgin. The angel did not say when this birth was to take place and Mary was espoused to Joseph at that time. If she had planned on having sexual relations, she would be doing so shortly and it would not be a mystery how the birth was to occur. However, if she planned on remaining a virgin all her life, her question to the angel was perfectly understandable.

4. In the episode where the parents of Jesus found Him in the temple at age twelve, there is no mention of other children and if there had been other younger children they likely would have been mentioned.

5. None of the early church fathers advocated that Mary had other children. On the other hand, many of them advocated her perpetual virginity. Of particular note among this group were Jerome, Ambrose of Milan (d. 397) and Augustine (d. 430).

6. The early reformers, including Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley all advocated the perpetual virginity of Mary.

7. The strongest indicator that Mary had no other children is contained in John 19:26-27, where Jesus places the care of his mother with John. If Mary had other children, this would have been unthinkable at every level imaginable. In fact, it was when I really thought about this event that I decided Mary did not have any other children.

The only difficult Scripture for those who advocate the perpetual virginity of Mary is Matthew 1:25 ("but [Joseph] kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son"). The implication may seem to be that Joseph had sexual relations with his wife after the birth of Jesus. But the language of the Bible does not bear this out. For example, consider 1 Corinthians 15:25, "For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet." Should we infer that He ceases to reign after He has put all His enemies under His feet? Likewise, we need not infer that Joseph had sexual relations with his wife after the birth of Jesus.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Mary had no other children after Jesus was born. She remained a virgin her entire life and the overwhelming evidence of this is found in Scripture, although Tradition is in full accord.

1. Scripture never says that Mary had other children. We can only infer this on account of Scriptural references to brothers and sisters of the Lord. But nowhere were they referred to as children of Mary.

2. Reference to brothers and sisters would certainly include the possibility that these people were "half siblings", i.e., children of Joseph by an earlier marriage. In fact, this belief prevailed in the early church until the time of Jerome (d. 420). Jerome concluded that these brothers and sisters were in fact cousins. In Hebrew and Aramaic there was no word for "cousin" and the relationship was either designated "brother" or it was shown by circumlocution, such as "son of my father's brother", etc. For example, Genesis 14:14 (KJV) refers to Lot as Abram's brother; in Genesis 29:15 (KJV) Laban calls Jacob his brother; in 2 Kings 10:13-14 (KJV) the 42 captives of Jehu call themselves brothers of Ahaziah. Indeed it is possible that some of the "brothers" of Jesus were half-brothers and others were cousins.

3. When the angel announced the coming birth of the King of Israel, Mary's response was, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" The implication here is that Mary had already committed herself to remain a virgin. The angel did not say when this birth was to take place and Mary was espoused to Joseph at that time. If she had planned on having sexual relations, she would be doing so shortly and it would not be a mystery how the birth was to occur. However, if she planned on remaining a virgin all her life, her question to the angel was perfectly understandable.

4. In the episode where the parents of Jesus found Him in the temple at age twelve, there is no mention of other children and if there had been other younger children they likely would have been mentioned.

5. None of the early church fathers advocated that Mary had other children. On the other hand, many of them advocated her perpetual virginity. Of particular note among this group were Jerome, Ambrose of Milan (d. 397) and Augustine (d. 430).

6. The early reformers, including Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley all advocated the perpetual virginity of Mary.

7. The strongest indicator that Mary had no other children is contained in John 19:26-27, where Jesus places the care of his mother with John. If Mary had other children, this would have been unthinkable at every level imaginable. In fact, it was when I really thought about this event that I decided Mary did not have any other children.

The only difficult Scripture for those who advocate the perpetual virginity of Mary is Matthew 1:25 ("but [Joseph] kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son"). The implication may seem to be that Joseph had sexual relations with his wife after the birth of Jesus. But the language of the Bible does not bear this out. For example, consider 1 Corinthians 15:25, "For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet." Should we infer that He ceases to reign after He has put all His enemies under His feet? Likewise, we need not infer that Joseph had sexual relations with his wife after the birth of Jesus.

To say Mary and Joseph never had intercourse is a horrid stance. We can plainly read But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.[Matthew 1:25] The word used in the NIV I used is the word 'know' used by the KJV. This is what the Greek word used means Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. No matter how you try to twist it, Mary was not sinless, even before conception, let alone her whole life. And by her having intercourse with Joseph in no way defiled her.

She did, in fact, have children. We can read "Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”[Matthew 13:56] The Greek word for 'sisters' means full, own sister, one connected by the tie of the Christian religion. Now, the context does not refer to them as His Sisters as being believers, but His natural sisters, half-sisters seeing Joseph and Mary had them.

 

[JonC]

To have a marriage and no intercourse is of no difference than being roommates, imo. God gave man an 'outty' and the woman an 'inny' just for that cause. He commanded them(Adam and Eve) to be fruitful and multiply. One can not multiply without being fruitful.

Then let's appeal to Apostle Paul... Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.[1 Corinthians 7:1-7] Here you can see that Paul states that those who are married should not have control over their own bodies, but their spouse...meaning if one wants to have intercourse, the other should consent. Yet, he said it was by concession and not a command. Our bodies desire natural relations with our spouses and, just like with food, after so long without relations, it gets hungry. That's when Satan really gains traction with Christian ppl. They, their bodies I mean, have a desire that needs to be fed. This desire is only allowed in the marriage bed[Hebrews 13:4]. But if the wife, or husband, is not feeding their spouse's desire, their body is still hungry and if they aren't really careful, Satan could snatch them up in the heat of passion. That is why Paul wrote Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.[1 Corinthians 7:5]

So it is unbiblical for the man or wife to not have intercourse with their spouse.

I understand the passages regarding "marital duty". What I disagree with is the conclusions that a marriage is merely an outlet to satisfy one's physical desires (other than that, people are roommates).

I take it from your explanation that you reject the idea that a handicapped couple, unable to perform such physical acts, can be truly married. Since you view the essential purpose of marriage to be physical, and the physical reason for such relations is procreation, do you also believe that couples who cannot have biological children of their own are also not able to truly be married?

I understand and agree with physical submissiveness towards one another within a marriage. But I believe that you have a very skewed understanding of intimacy.

Insofar as the topic of the OP is concerned, of course Mary had such relations with Joseph. This is clear in scripture.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I understand the passages regarding "marital duty". What I disagree with is the conclusions that a marriage is merely an outlet to satisfy one's physical desires (other than that, people are roommates).

Okay. I did not say that. I did not say that "a marriage is merely an outlet to satisfy one's physical desires." Intercourse betwixt one man and one woman is sanctified a holy act by God(we both agree here). But ppl wed because of love and intercourse is an outpouring of that love.

I take it from your explanation that you reject the idea that a handicapped couple, unable to perform such physical acts, can be truly married. Since you view the essential purpose of marriage to be physical, and the physical reason for such relations is procreation, do you also believe that couples who cannot have biological children of their own are also not able to truly be married?

Again, I never said that. But even the elderly marry. No doubt they have desires still. Dad asked a 91 y/o man once how old does a man have to get before he stops wanting a woman and he, without hesitation, said to ask someone older than him.

I understand and agree with physical submissiveness towards one another within a marriage. But I believe that you have a very skewed understanding of intimacy.

I hope my above responses have answered you.

Insofar as the topic of the OP is concerned, of course Mary had such relations with Joseph. This is clear in scripture.

Agreed.

 

[JonC]

Okay. I did not say that. I did not say that "a marriage is merely an outlet to satisfy one's physical desires." Intercourse betwixt one man and one woman is sanctified a holy act by God(we both agree here). But ppl wed because of love and intercourse is an outpouring of that love.


Again, I never said that. But even the elderly marry. No doubt they have desires still. Dad asked a 91 y/o man once how old does a man have to get before he stops wanting a woman and he, without hesitation, said to ask someone older than him.


I hope my above responses have answered you.


Agreed.

My reply was, like this one, asking...not stating that you said something. What you said was

To have a marriage and no intercourse is of no difference than being roommates, imo. God gave man an 'outty' and the woman an 'inny' just for that cause. He commanded them(Adam and Eve) to be fruitful and multiply. One can not multiply without being fruitful.

So, is marriage where such relations is not possible really not a marriage (my example was handicapped persons physically unable to perform the "act")? If the command is ultimately to be fruitful, then is "fruitless" marriage unbiblical?

The reason that I ask is that the satisfaction of such desires do not seem to me as the primary intimacy in a marriage. Maybe I'm just getting old. Frown

The issue is not what constitutes a "biblical" marriage, but what constitutes an "unbiblical" one. I simply disagree that the primary focus of a marriage is that one act of physical intimacy. In fact, I believe marriage to be more of an issue of spiritual rather than physical intimacy.

 

[DHK]

Just an observation concerning "grace."
The phrase "full of grace" is used but one time in the Bible, and it describes Jesus Christ.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth.

Concerning Stephen the Word describes him this way:
Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.

Mary was "highly favored."

Grace is unmerited favor, that which God bestows that we don't deserve.
This is an example of God's grace:
Matthew 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
--Both the saved and unsaved are recipients of God's grace. He doesn't give God's grace to just the just.

I hear in the media of the terrible tornadoes hitting the mid-west right now. Is the damage done affecting only the unjust while the just escape the judgment of God? You will find examples of God's grace among all--both saved and unsaved alike.