|
|
Post by batman on Sept 17, 2007 19:43:04 GMT -5
Your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by andrea1018 on Sept 17, 2007 19:58:32 GMT -5
I say no. Scriptural reference tells us that Christ had brothers and sisters.
|
|
|
|
Post by batman on Sept 17, 2007 20:01:16 GMT -5
I say no. Scriptural reference tells us that Christ had brothers and sisters. Yet earlier Christians understood those children to be Josephs from an earlier marriage. |
|
|
|
Post by andrea1018 on Sept 17, 2007 20:04:06 GMT -5
What would be wrong if she was not a virgin? How is it a "bad thing" if she did produce children with her husband? Does that make her any less blessed?
|
|
|
|
Post by batman on Sept 17, 2007 20:06:17 GMT -5
What would be wrong if she was not a virgin? How is it a "bad thing" if she did produce children with her husband? Does that make her any less blessed? Nope, nor did I claim it would. That said, I think it's a bit ethnocentric and anachronistic for us to think FAITHFUL Jews from 2k years ago would think to....soil where G-d dwelled. |
|
|
|
Post by andrea1018 on Sept 17, 2007 20:09:24 GMT -5
What would be wrong if she was not a virgin? How is it a "bad thing" if she did produce children with her husband? Does that make her any less blessed? Nope, nor did I claim it would. That said, I think it's a bit ethnocentric and anachronistic for us to think FAITHFUL Jews from 2k years ago would think to....soil where G-d dwelled. Why would that be soiling it? Is not sex between a man and wife a sacred act that was comanded by God Himself? |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Sept 17, 2007 20:23:02 GMT -5
Why would that be soiling it? Is not sex between a man and wife a sacred act that was commanded by God Himself? I thought this had spell check? Don't make me fix your spelling  Anyway, the difference is when G-d commanded us to have sex it didn't involve putting a thingy where the Holy Spirit dwelled and putting seed where G-d was made flesh. It's totally different and the early Christians (most) realized that. You are looking at the issue as a 21st Century American, not as a B.C. Jew, I think. |
|
|
|
Post by andrea1018 on Sept 17, 2007 20:26:49 GMT -5
Why would that be soiling it? Is not sex between a man and wife a sacred act that was commanded by God Himself? I thought this had spell check? Don't make me fix your spelling Anyway, the difference is when G-d commanded us to have sex it didn't involve putting a thingy where the Holy Spirit dwelled and putting seed where G-d was made flesh. It's totally different and the early Christians (most) realized that. You are looking at the issue as a 21st Century American, not as a B.C. Jew, I think. Actually I am. Marital sex is holy. It is an exact mirror image between man and woman as it is with man and God. To say that it isn't negates God's command to go be fruitful and multiply. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Sept 17, 2007 20:35:41 GMT -5
Actually I am. Marital sex is holy. It is an exact mirror image between man and woman as it is with man and God. To say that it isn't negates God's command to go be fruitful and multiply. This entire argument sidesteps the fact that this would be sex where G-d dwelt. Mary was the new ark and was to be kept pure. And if you were thinking like 2K old Jews, then why did the 2K old Jews say she died a virgin???  |
|
|
|
Post by andrea1018 on Sept 17, 2007 20:41:35 GMT -5
Actually I am. Marital sex is holy. It is an exact mirror image between man and woman as it is with man and God. To say that it isn't negates God's command to go be fruitful and multiply. This entire argument sidesteps the fact that this would be sex where G-d dwelt. Mary was the new ark and was to be kept pure. And if you were thinking like 2K old Jews, then why did the 2K old Jews say she died a virgin??? You are not getting my point. What is "unclean" about sex? |
|
|
|
Post by chapdaddy on Sept 17, 2007 20:51:58 GMT -5
I have no klew... but I don't know what difference it would make one way or the other.
It seems kinda dualistic and against the entire point of the incarnation to say that no one else could pass through her womb because it was a holy place. Are we not the temples of God? Sons of God? To say that God is not part of every person is to nullify the purpose of God becoming part of creation.
|
|
|
|
Post by batman on Sept 17, 2007 20:52:15 GMT -5
You are not getting my point. What is "unclean" about sex? [/quote] I don't think you're getting mine.... Anyway, nothing. At the same time, there is nothing unclean about tons of things, but you wouldn't stick them in the Ark. |
|
|
|
Post by chapdaddy on Sept 17, 2007 20:52:17 GMT -5
This entire argument sidesteps the fact that this would be sex where G-d dwelt. Mary was the new ark and was to be kept pure. And if you were thinking like 2K old Jews, then why did the 2K old Jews say she died a virgin??? You are not getting my point. What is "unclean" about sex? it's just icky and gross |
|
|
|
Post by andrea1018 on Sept 17, 2007 20:56:57 GMT -5
You are not getting my point. What is "unclean" about sex? I don't think you're getting mine.... Anyway, nothing. At the same time, there is nothing unclean about tons of things, but you wouldn't stick them in the Ark.[/quote]Understood. But sex is a different thing all together. I actually veiw it as a form of worship. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Sept 17, 2007 21:05:47 GMT -5
That just makes you a weirdo.
|
|
