SolaScriptura in 2003
New Member
Poll about how you think God proved Mary to be a virgin at the time of Christ's conception and birth.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Really? Sola Scripturists tend to take the Bible at it's word, why should they have to answer this question?I think these are interesting questions that the "sola scriptura" crowd SHOULD answer, since the only thing the apostles had to deal with must have been the OT prophecies and word of mouth.
This is a baffling statement coming from a Catholic. Hmmmmmm?Just some thoughts on an interesting subject, but one that really doesn't have a very clear answer to me.
I know you think this is a simple yes or no question, but it's not. I think Frank exhibited how, perhaps, a simple "yes" or "no" would not suffice when he asked you if you still beat your wife. A question you not-so-subtly ignored.When Joseph, Mary's husband, refrained from having sexual relations with Mary before Christ's birth, we believe it was out of respect for the Holy Spirit who had over-shadowed Mary, and for Christ who took 100% of His Humanity from her and made her His home for 9 months.
Is it fair to say that you do not see that, i.e. respect for the Holy Spirit and Christ, as Joseph's reason for abstinence? Why do you believe he abstained?
So, first I would ask: 1) Would it have been common for a Godly man like Joseph to demand his privileges from his expecting wife? 2) Was sex among Jewish couples in this time period mostly for reproduction?Chapter XXVIII.-Perfect Knowledge Cannot Be Attained in the Present Life: Many Questions Must Be Submissively Left in the Hands of God.
2. . . .We should leave things of that nature to God who created us, being most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit; but we, inasmuch as we are inferior to, and later in existence than, the Word of God and His Spirit, are on that very account227 destitute of the knowledge of His mysteries. And there is no cause for wonder if this is the case with us as respects things spiritual and heavenly, and such as require to be made known to us by revelation, since many even of those things which lie at our very feet (I mean such as belong to this world, which we handle, and see, and are in close contact with) transcend out knowledge, so that even these we must leave to God. For it is fitting that He should excel all [in knowledge]. . .
3. If, therefore, even with respect to creation, there are some things [the knowledge of] Which belongs only to God, and others which come with in the range of our own knowledge, what ground is there for complaint, if, in regard to those things which we investigate in the Scriptures (which are throughout spiritual), we are able by the grace of God to explain some of them, while we must leave others in the hands of God, and that not only in the present world, but also in that which is to come, so that God should for ever teach, and man should for ever learn the things taught him by God? As the apostle has said on this point, that, when other things have been done away, then these three, "faith, hope, and charity, shall endure."229 For faith, which has respect to our Master, endures230 unchangeably, assuring us that there is but one true God, and that we should truly love Him for ever, seeing that He alone is our Father; while we hope ever to be receiving more and more from God, and to learn from Him, because He is good, and possesses boundless riches, a kingdom without end, and instruction that can never be exhausted. If, therefore, according to the rule which I have stated, we leave some questions in the hands of God, we shall both preserve our faith uninjured, and shall continue without danger; and all Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found by us perfectly consistent; and the parables shall harmonize with those passages which are perfectly plain; and those statements the meaning of which is clear, shall serve to explain the parables; and through the many diversified utterances [of Scripture] there shall be heard231 one harmonious melody in us, praising in hymns that God who created all things. If, for instance, any one asks, "What was God doing before He made the world? "we reply that the answer to such a question lies with God Himself. For that this world was formed perfect232 by God, receiving a beginning in time, the Scriptures teach us; but no Scripture reveals to us what God was employed about before this event. The answer therefore to that question remains with God, and it is not proper233 for us to aim at bringing forward foolish, rash, and blasphemous suppositions [in reply to it]; so, as by one's imagining that he has discovered the origin of matter, he should in reality set aside God Himself who made all things.
Okay.Lisa --
Okay. Pretend you are a first century believer. Jesus is preaching to the crowds.
I can't as far as convincing others that she was. But, Joseph can possibly vouch for her purity.Explain to me now HOW you prove to your family that He was born of a virgin.
Ed--do you recall me ever stating that Mary's virginity could or could not be proven, by anyone other than Joseph?Do it from Scripture alone as a "sola scripturalist."
Well, Ed, I don't think that anyone was convinced of Jesus' identity based upon Mary's virginity. I think it was the miracles He performed, as well as the other "clues" prophesied in the Old Testament. We know that Mary claimed to be a virgin and Joseph apparently believed that she was. Then there's always the question, did the events in the NT occur as prophesied, or did they occur because of prophesy?" Get my point?HINT: There is no NT yet. Therefore, there is no Lukian narrative, there is no other narrative to use as "proof text" of the virgin birth. There is, in fact, only one very obscure verse. Now prove that this young maiden, among all the others in Jerusalem at the time, was the one, from that verse alone and without any other corroborating evidence.
I'm sure you were disappointed. However, I await your method of proving Mary's virginity. Since, you believe there is infallible external evidence in addition to scripture, could you tell us what it is.This should be rich.
raymond, do you consider every object touched, piece of bread touched, cup drank from, person healed, touched, or embraced, place stepped on, places walked on; sat on, slept on, by Jesus to be holy or sacred? If so, then how were these things allowed to be touched by anyone after Christ touched them? Mary was a person, not a piece of land. Your analogies and arguments in regards to Bull Run or the Gettysburg battlefield do her no justice. Don't you realize that to refuse that Mary was a common sinner just as you, I and every other sinner Jesus personally touched is to belittle the intent of God by being born of a "woman?" You take away from Jesus' humanity and the whole purpose of Him becoming human.Lisa, I am afraid I have to disagree when you say Mary was not a Holy object. I don't see how you could possibly maintain that Mary's womb, being in constant contact with the Most Holy for a period of 9 months, would not be sacred.
If Mary was a thing like the Ark of the Covenant or the Tabernacle, then nobody would have been able to touch her, not even a hug. How would she have been allowed to perform menial tasks? Not to mention the unmentionable, eating and digesting food. That means she urinated and defecated. Would a holy object have been able to do that? If so, then why would performing marital relations with her husband have been wrong or not allowed?If Mary's womb was not a holy object, then neither was the Tabernacle, nor the Ark of the Covenant, nor the Temple.
I guess I am.Unless you are with the crowd that says there are no holy objects
You know, the only reason we would not build a bowling alley on Bull Run is out of desire to preserve history. Not because we consider the land holy or sacred. Joseph may have considered himself unworthy of exercising his husbandly rights upon Mary. We just have no way of knowing that for certain., that all objects should be treated with the same regard or disregard, that it is ok to build a bowling alley over Bull Run or a grocery store over Gettysburg, then I don't see how that 'respect' which kept Joseph from consumating his marriage would suddenly cease after Christ was born.
First, from what I read on this thread by Sola, I didn't see him (or her) stating factually that Joseph and Mary had sex. I can see where people do infer from Scripture that they in fact did. Personally, I recognize there is room for question.Lisa, since the Scriptures are 'too vague' why do you suppose people like Frank and Sola insist that they know for a fact that Mary did not remain a virgin? Is it too much television or what?
Ahhh!! Exactly my point!! Only you said it much better than I. If denying your partner sex is denying him/her the ability to procreate, then there is no reason to assume that Joseph would have demanded or expected his husbandly rights from Mary if she was already with child.Just a random thought after reading this and the related thread.
Since God instructed man to "go forth and multiply", why is it assumed that the admonishment not to deny your partner is primarily about sexual pleasure and not procreation?
In biblical times, and in many parts of the world today for that matter, the quality of the end of your life may rely very heavily upon whether you had children or not. To deny your partner children could be a very serious thing.
Is it an American cultural thing to automatically think it is about pleasure?
Sarah only had one child but Abraham had other children. Jesus is the unique Son of the Father, his mother Mary had other children.The first time is to Abraham, Sara will conceive a child (Isaac). Sara only had one child. (Gen 18,10)