Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180585 | ||
Of course it was a miracle. That wasn't the question. Please bear with my process, there is a point to it, and its maybe not to "logically explain it away." Legalistically, since Mary was still a virgin, no sex act occurred, so technically it can't have been adultery. Yet, there are many broken people who have experienced the pain of a spouse who was for all practical purposes unfaithful, but perhaps not sexually, rather emotionally with someone else. This is perhaps even more of a betrayal than the physical. For them, the question of what constitutes infidelity is not just about whether or not intercourse occurred. Certainly what happened between Mary and the Holy Spirit was intimate. In other words, does it not qualify as adultery by virture of the fact it was God who was involved, or that it was not sexual? (I think perhaps both, and seek scriptural support for the former aspect of that.) That is, if it were possible for a man to impregnate Mary without having sex with her, or even physical contact, how would it be seen and more importantly, would Joseph feel betrayed? I think we would have a problem with that scenario, and would expect no less from Joseph. So, my purpose is to illuminate why it may be different because it was God, not man. Scripture tells that Joseph, a righteous man, considered divorcing Mary because she was pregnant not by him. The angel told him not to do so because the child she carried was from God. Either this means that what happened was somehow not was not adultery, or if it was, it was somehow justified, like not all killing is murder, e.g. self-defense or execution by the state. This is exegesis, not an attempt to disparage God. |
||||||
2 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | srbaegon | 180587 | ||
Hello Parable, Under the Mosaic Law (applicable at the time that Mary became pregnant) adultery occurred when there was a sex act. There was none between God and Mary. You mentioned emotions, and that has some bearing since lusting after another woman was to be considered adultery. There was no lust of God for Mary. Conclusion: There was no adultery on any level. You speculate about impregnating a woman without intercourse. Since this was an impossibility, there is no point in mentioning it. And even if it was possible at the time, it is still not adultery since no intercourse nor the desire of it took place. You need to remember something of paramount importance here. God said that the two would become one flesh (Gen 2:24). That requires a physical act. It seals the emotional and spiritual bond between man and wife. Nothing like this happened between God and Mary. Steve |
||||||
3 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180592 | ||
Your conclusions may have merit, but upon what do you base them, specifically? As for my hypothetical situation, it was to get at the point of whether the issue centers on who was involved, and perhaps not on the means by which it was done. So there was a point in mentioning it. As for it not being adultery if there was no intercourse, that's understood. However, my purpose was to consider the deeper question of what constitutes infidelity. For example, in Jeremiah 28:8, God says "I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries." If physical intercourse is necessary, this can only mean that the nation of Israel had physical intercourse with someone besides God, when most understand this to refer to Israel's idolatry with other religions. |
||||||
4 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180593 | ||
correction, make that Jer 3:8, not 28:8. | ||||||