ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Explain Luke 1:26-28

"Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son,
and you shall name him Jesus. How can this be,
since I have no relations with a man?" Luke 1:26-38

What did Mary mean by this statement?

Join Our Christian Chat and Take The Who Is Mary Bible Quiz
 ---Ruben on 12/12/18
     Helpful Blog Vote (1)

Post a New Blog



"Or is it only to YOU that the word of God has come?" Thou sayest:o)
---josef on 1/19/19


\\Even ALL the Reformers taught Mary's perpetual virginity.
Then based on Mat. 1:25 what they taught was false.\\

What else did the Reformers teach that was false, josef?

Or is it only to YOU that the word of God has come?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/19/19


As I explained to Ruben earlier in this blog, that verse along with the one he mentioned, is explained here "For he [Jesus] must reign, till (heos) he hath put all enemies under his feet...And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all, in all." 1Co 15:25,28
---josef on 12/21/18
---josef on 1/18/19

But where in Matthew 1:18-25 does it say Mary had other children?

If Mary had other children Lk 2:41-45 when they realized he was missing, they ask every one about him except his so-call brothers and sisters?
---Ruben on 1/19/19


I'm sorry I got sucked into this conversation.

Normally I do not discuss ANY Marian doctrine, except to insist that the Virgin's Son is God Incarnate.

This is frequently a new idea to many people on these blogs.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/18/19


" Jesus at the end of the the SAME Gospel said He would be with us "always, even EOS the end of the world. If EOS is Matthew 1 means that Joseph had marital relations t\with the Virgin after the birth of Jesus, then at the end of the SAME Gospel, at the end of the world, Jesus will no longer be with us"
Cluny As I explained to Ruben earlier in this blog, that verse along with the one he mentioned, is explained here "For he [Jesus] must reign, till (heos) he hath put all enemies under his feet...And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all, in all." 1Co 15:25,28
---josef on 12/21/18
---josef on 1/18/19




"josef, "first born son" has a technical meaning in Judaism. If and ONLY if a woman's first pregnancy results in the LIVE birth of a male child is this her firstborn son. She need not have any others." In actuality Cluny a woman having another "first born son" is an impossibility if her first born son lives. In any tradition.
---josef on 1/18/19


josef, "first born son" has a technical meaning in Judaism. If and ONLY if a woman's first pregnancy results in the LIVE birth of a male child is this her firstborn son. She need not have any others.

Furthermore, the word "eos" frequently means "never", as when Jesus at the end of the the SAME Gospel said He would be with us "always, even EOS the end of the world."

If EOS is Matthew 1 means that Joseph had marital relations t\with the Virgin after the birth of Jesus, then at the end of the SAME Gospel, at the end of the world, Jesus will no longer be with us.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/17/19


They didn't Melody.
Just how would you know this Cluny?

Even ALL the Reformers taught Mary's perpetual virginity.
Then based on Mat. 1:25 what they taught was false.

After all, how could we make sure that our Savior was truly born of a virgin?
By reading and trusting the validity of of Father word, as written.
---josef on 1/17/19


\\Joseph and Mary consummated their marriage\\

They didn't Melody.

Even ALL the Reformers taught Mary's perpetual virginity.

After all, how could we make sure that our Savior was truly born of a virgin?

And as both Ruben and I have pointed out, there are many times in the NT that "brother" clearly does not mean "of the same mother".

Through the Gospels we find such phrases as "mother of the sons of Zebedee," but only "Mary, the Mother of Jesus."

Think about it.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/17/19


Ruben:

I's not what some believe - but what comes from GOD'S WORD AS TRUTH,

Read Mark 3:31 thru 35: "There came then, this brethren and his mother, and standing without, sent unto HIM, calling HIM".

---Melody on 1/15/19

Romans 1:13 13 I want you to know, brethren, that I have often intended to come to you ..

The term brethren is used here. So it has a larger meaning than just blood brothers.

Remember, (I's not what some believe - but what comes from GOD'S WORD AS TRUTH,)

("But other of the apostles, saw I none, save James THE LORD'S brother". Galatians 1:19
---Melody on 1/16/19

Which Apostles of the two listed is this James?
---Ruben on 1/17/19




THE LORD JESUS four half brothers (from The Original Scriptures that haven't been adulterated by false doctrines)- being born after HIS Birth when Joseph and Mary consummated their marriage and they were: Joseph, James, Jude and Simon (these last three not to be confused with those who were disciples of THE LORD JESUS - bearing the same name - confirm from The Scriptures).

"After this went down to Capernaum, HE and HIS mother, and HIS brethren (brothers) and his disciples, and they continued there not many days". John 2:12

"But other of the apostles, saw I none, save James THE LORD'S brother". Galatians 1:19
---Melody on 1/16/19


Melody: "Is this not the carpenter SON? - is not HIS mother called Mary? - and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas?. And HIS sisters? - are they not all with us?//

You need to FIRST understand their language before you try to correct someone.

They didn't have a word for 'cousin'. Brothers and Sisters ALSO applied to cousins (first).

They also don't have a word for uncle or aunt.

Even Hispanics consider having the SAME grandparents denotes immediate family.

The Scripture ALSO names their father and mother which WASN'T Joseph or Mary the mother of Jesus.
---Nicole_Lacey on 1/16/19


Nicole own delusionary words that keep on contradicting GOD'S WORD and even when proved by The Scriptures - she chooses not to recognize the seriousness of the spiritual situation that she is if THE LORD calls her to eternity without repenting of even putting herself above GOD'S SAYINGS: Matthew 13: 55,56 -

"Is this not the carpenter SON? - is not HIS mother called Mary? - and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas?. And HIS sisters? - are they not all with us? Whence then has this MAN all things?".
---Melody on 1/16/19


Ruben:

I's not what some believe - but what comes from GOD'S WORD AS TRUTH, on that put to shame those who dare to contradict IT!

Read Mark 3:31 thru 35: "There came then, this brethren and his mother, and standing without, sent unto HIM, calling HIM".

"And the multitude sat about HIM, and they said unto HIM: Behold thy mother and thy brethren without, seek for THEE".

"And HE answered them, saying:
Who is my mother, or my brethren?".

"And HE looked round about on them which sat about HIM, and said: Behold my mother, and my brethren".

"For whosoever shall do the will of GOD, the same is my brother and my sister and other".
---Melody on 1/15/19


Cluny: Actually, it was their youngest step brother, Nicole.//

Actually? Actually?

Actually not, Cluny.

Prove to me that Joseph married AFTER he married Mary for you to CLAIM that actually Jesus had a younger brother or sister.

Give an actual citation.

Remember James and John had a different father.

That is an actual fact.

So, if they are His step brothers it means Mary married their father, which DIDN'T HAPPEN.
---Nicole_Lacey on 1/15/19


\\Nor did Luke chapter 2 states the brothers and sisters went with them back to Jerusalem to find their older brother.\\

Actually, it was their youngest step brother, Nicole.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/15/19


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage


Excellent point, Ruben.

Nor did Luke chapter 2 states the brothers and sisters went with them back to Jerusalem to find their older brother.

I know you are aware that Jewish men are obligated to care for their widowed mothers by law.

To have John take another man's mother would be a disgrace to her so called other sons.

Plus, a woman couldn't live with a man without proper reasoning.

It would be a SANDAL.

Her sons would MAKE her return to their home.

After all, if they were willing to FORCE Jesus home to save their family's name why not force Mary home?

Mark 3:21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, He is out of his mind.
---Nicole_Lacey on 1/5/19


StrongAxe 8 because it is necessary to do so to justify keeping Mary perpetually a virgin,

The Angel told her she will conceived in the future, Mary words tells us her intentions was to remain a virgin.


StrongAxe8 * but you must also remember that the PRIMARY meaning of brother is still "another child of the same parents",

When Joseph and Mary lost Jesus, nowhere does scripture say they ask his so-called brothers and sisters!Lk 3



StrongAxe* That is just Catholic tradition

John Calvin and others non-catholic believe she had no other Children.
---Ruben on 1/5/19


Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not, nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).
---Nicole_Lacey on 1/3/19


StrongAxe, I couldn't write the whole quote. Did you Google 'Birth Control' - Catholic Answers and read the whole quote?

It is concerns about our debate. There is NEVER a reason to use BCP

Around 307 Lactantius explained that some "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20).

I will speak about St. Augustine who agrees with me about Onan.
---Nicole_Lacey on 1/3/19


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation


I meant to say 'Excellent point' to NurseRobert
---Nicole_Lacey on 1/3/19


Nicole_Lacey:

You wrote: StrongAxe, this one is for you: 307 Lactantius..it is better to ABSTAIN from relations with his wife"

Yet scripture says otherwise:
1 Corinthians 7:5
Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

i.e. marital abstinence may be practiced temporarily for prayer and fasting, not permanently for birth control.
---StrongAxe on 1/3/19


NurseRobert: I never said that contraception was new, I said birth control pill were.

Seriously?

So because it isn't in a pretty color coated pill it's DIFFERENT from the herbs and plants used to do the SAME THING?

Please drop 'Nurse' to your name.

//I said that until the 1500 did the Catholic Church take any of that seriously.//

Read Birth Control-Catholic Answers

Here are examples from the articles:

**In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote,
br>Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255...they use drugs

StrongAxe, this one is for you: 307 Lactantius..it is better to ABSTAIN from relations with his wife"

The First Council of Nicaea, 325

Augustine wrote in 419, "....
---Nicole_Lacey on 1/2/19


**Is contraception a modern invention? Hardly!
---Nicole_Lacey on 1/2/19

No one but YOU is arguing that point. I never said that contraception was new, I said birth control pill were.

You completely ignored the second part of the post where I said that until the 1500 did the Catholic Church take any of that seriously.

Perhaps you should read the report from the Guttmacher Institute that shows that only 2 percent of Catholic women, even those who regularly attend church, rely on natural family planning.
---NurseRobert on 1/2/19


Send a Free Thinking of You Ecard


Nicole_Lacey:

Yes, but you keep missing my point. If a company or government provides insurance but believes birth control or marijuana are wrong, they deny coverage EVEN when they are used for different, beneficial purposes. The people who need them FOR MEDICAL ILLNESSES are denied and are collateral damage caused by self-righteous bureaucrats who impose their moral beliefs on others for NO good reason.

Google: why is marijuana illegal
Alcohol is much more dangerous, and marijuana was legal until 1927, when it was outlawed over fears about Mexican immigrants, despite objections by the AMA, and because cheap hemp fiber was a threat to the paper and nylon industries. With the War on Drugs, it also became a moral issue.
---StrongAxe on 1/2/19


StrongAxe, and DID YOU READ what I said about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOING THE SAME THING?

Where were you when the Government DIDN'T want to pay for BCP.

What was the Federal Government moral status?

Health Insurance is ONLY for medical illness.

Why can't you understand that?

They also do not pay for plastic surgeries?

Why not?

If you all want them to pay for relations which HAS NOTHING to do with illness then I WANT a face and breast lift!

See! When does it all end?

Your WISHES isn't BETTER than my WISHES!

Why stop at Health Insurance?

Lets go to Home Insurance. I need my kitchen and bathroom remodeled.

Car insurance needs to give me a new paint job.
---Nicole_Lacey on 1/2/19


NurseRobert: Are you kidding?? BCPs were not even invented until 1960.//

Just because you didn't know it doesn't mean it isn't happen.

**Is contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced in the Roman empire during the apostolic age. Wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though made out of animal skin rather than latex). --'Birth control' Catholic Answers

If you don't like Catholic Answers go to '10 Ancient Methods of Birth Control' by Iva Cheung
---Nicole_Lacey on 1/2/19


Everyone KNEW the CC has ALWAYS said BCP was a mortal sin for 2000 yrs.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/31/18

Are you kidding?? BCPs were not even invented until 1960. Your saying the CC preached against them for 2000 years?

Second, The church had little to say about contraception for many centuries. After the decline of the Roman Empire the church did little to explicitly prohibit contraception, teach against it, or stop it.

Most penitence manuals from the Middle Ages, which directed priests what types of sins to ask parishioners about, did not even mention contraception.

It was only in 1588 that Pope Sixtus V took the strongest conservative stance against contraception in Catholic history.
---NurseRobert on 1/1/19


Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing


Nicole_Lacey:

Did you even read what I wrote? I wasn't even talking about what God said about it. I didn't say they were the same to GOD. I specifically differentiated good uses of a thing from bad uses of a thing. I was specifically talking about how INSURANCE companies deal with them (they will refuse coverage for some drugs, REGARDLESS of wheher they are used for good or bad purposes), and VENDORS (they will sell items, whether they are used for good or bad purposes).

Since you apparently aren't aware of it, look up the famous Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby (2014) Supreme Court case. Meanwhile, Hobby Lobby still covers vasectomies and viagra.
---StrongAxe on 1/1/19


StrongAxe: Selling estrogen pills (that some use for birth control, and others use for medical reasons) is no more a mortal sin, in and of itself,//

Do you think God is stupid?

Someone taking Morphine for pain and another taking it to get high is the SAME to God?

//Yet the same Catholic-insured companies that offer health insurance policies will not pay for estrogen pills, EVEN if they are used for non-birth control reasons.//

Start CITING or stop with that ridiculous

As for Viagra and Cialis goes, insurance will NOT pay for them except for BPH or Cardiac problems.

Not for pleasure as well.

No double standard! Medical reasons as well.
---Nicole_Lacey on 1/1/19


Nicole_Lacey:

Selling estrogen pills (that some use for birth control, and others use for medical reasons) is no more a mortal sin, in and of itself, than selling knives or guns (that some use for murder, and others use for cooking).

Yet the same Catholic-insured companies that offer health insurance policies will not pay for estrogen pills, EVEN if they are used for non-birth control reasons. As far as "pleasure" goes, those same companies that deny coverage of estrogen pills WILL cover viagra and cialis. Isn't that a double standard?
---StrongAxe on 1/1/19


StrongAxe, THANK YOU.

That's WHY I said I didn't remember and I apologized in advance if I did say it with a clarification.//This is the same self-rightous puritanical "imposing my morality on others" mentality//

It's YOU ALL IMPOSING your morality on us!

Everyone KNEW the CC has ALWAYS said BCP was a mortal sin for 2000 yrs.

But nooooo, you all needed to find someway to force us to commit a mortal sin AGAINST OUR WILL!

If you want to have relations pay for it yourself!

That's your recreation!

I like to go to Daily Mass and I can PROVE it lowers my blood pressure which is a medical issue.

So I want $10 a month for my gas!

Your recreation ISN'T a more necessity than mine!
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/31/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises


Nicole_Lacey:

You wrote: I don't remember saying that because I had to have a hysterectomy for my cycles.

Earlier, you wrote, on 12/28/18 (scroll down on this page):
I used them for menstrual problems.
But it isn't contraception when it is used for medical uses.
It like using a anti-depressant for sleeping problems or numbness.
A med is designed for one problem, but can be used for it's side effects as well.
...
If you ONLY survey Pro-choice Catholics, of course 99% of them would say they use Contraception. And the 1% doesn't because they no longer have menstrual cycles
---StrongAxe on 12/31/18


StrongAxe: I used them for menstrual problems.//

I don't remember saying that because I had to have a hysterectomy for my cycles.

I used BCP to stop vomiting every cycle. Which without BCP it could dehydrate me which could lead to death without IVF's in the ER (every month).

But if I said that I am sorry it was a mistake.

All insurances COVERS BCP before Obamacare for anything OTHER than contraception.

//This is the same self-rightous puritanical "imposing my morality on others"//

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is self righteous?

Again, in 2005 I was working in the Federal Government who provided my insurance who REFUSED BCP for contraception.

NOT wanting children ISN'T a medical crisis.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/31/18


Nicole_Lacey:

You wrote: I used them for menstrual problems. But it isn't contraception when it is used for medical uses.

Exactly! YOU use birth control pills (estrogen pills) for uses that AREN'T contraception. However, some insurance plans won't cover them, even for such uses, because they can also be used for contraception. This is the same self-rightous puritanical "imposing my morality on others" mentality that prevents legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes, because SOME people might misuse it for (shudder!) pleasure.
---StrongAxe on 12/30/18


StrongAxe, I did work a company called the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that had health insurance that WOULD NOT pay for birth control pills!

BCP are designed for CONTRACEPTION not cramps.

But as ANY other medication they have SIDE EFFECTS not intended.

I would vomit nonstop (unless medicated) every cycle.

So the doctor LOOKED at the ingredients of birth control pills and realized it would stop my problem.

He gave my insurance lab results and his clinical notes via fax WHY I needed the birth control pills.

//their prescription plan won't cover those,//

Not for me! They PAID 100%

WHY?

because I wasn't prescribed the birth control pills for contraception purposes but to stop my vomiting.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/30/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation


Ruben:

You wrote: The word 'brothers' is use in a larger sense, one example is Gen 14:14 . Lot is called the brother of Abraham but is his nephew.

I know Catholics teach this interpretation, because it is necessary to do so to justify keeping Mary perpetually a virgin, but you must also remember that the PRIMARY meaning of brother is still "another child of the same parents", and there is nothing in the context of Matthew 12:46 that suggests that this must necessarily mean "relatives who are not actually siblings".

The Bible specifically says Mary was a virgin at the time Jesus was born, but nowhere does it say she remained a virgin for the rest of her life. That is just Catholic tradition.
---StrongAxe on 12/30/18


josef* What does that have to do with Mary remaining a virgin?

Once she understood .'

josef* Mat 1:25 reads as it reads.

So does 2 Sam 6:23-Matt 22:44 and 1 Tim 4: 13

josef* (Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.)

And Mary being a woman and Jewish, would know how right?

When the Angel told her IN THE FUTURE you will conceived a child, Mary would had said ,Great, Wonderful and Awesome, ask your wife how would she response given a future event?


josef* It is written, Jesus had brothers. Mat 12:46.

I will say this,

The word 'brothers' is use in a larger sense, one example is Gen 14:14 . Lot is called the brother of Abraham but is his nephew.
---Ruben on 12/30/18


Nicole_Lacey:

If you work for one of those companies (like Hobby Lobby), and have health insurance and a drug plan, they would pay for any prescriptions you get - EXCEPT, if you're prescribed birth control pills for cramps, their prescription plan won't cover those, because the company refuses to do so "for conscientious reasons", since they oppose birth control - EVEN when those pills aren't being used for birth control at all!
---StrongAxe on 12/29/18


The scripture tells only up to 25 she had borne a son, Nothing after!
What does that have to do with Mary remaining a virgin? Mat 1:25 reads as it reads. How are you defining the word 'till' as used in Mat 1:25? Allow me to help you out, Till old english for until, defined "up to the time that or when". This, by my logic:o), implies that after this time Joseph 'knew' her. (Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.) After all, It is written, Jesus had brothers. Mat 12:46. However, Ruben it is not for me to attempt to convince you to think as I do, It is for me to give you the full and free liberty of thinking for yourself. Be blessed with your thoughts.
---josef on 12/29/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages


StrongAxe: wording is important. Campaigned against being force to pay for someone else usage not birth control pill in it's self.

//the laws they pass don't care whether they're used for contraception or cramp control.//

Yes it does! Understand it isn't contraception when it is used for medical purposes.

It isn't any difference than making Jew Hospitals serve PORK.

Insurances pays for all kinds of medication AFTER they know the intention.

If you don't want to get pregnant DON'T have relations.

Relations ISN'T a necessity to continue to LIVE.

But, my need for birth control pills at that point was needed to KEEP me ALIVE.

Guess what?

My insurance paid for it before OBAMACARE in 2005.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/29/18


Nicole_Lacey:

When people campaign against legalization of birth control pills, the laws they pass don't care whether they're used for contraception or cramp control. They would hurt people like you. When insurance companies refuse to pay for birth control prescriptions "on conscientious grounds", they don't make exceptions for women who just want them to control cramps. They don't care about people like you.
---StrongAxe on 12/29/18


josef* Ruben, your last post made absolutely no sense to me. Will you clarify? I will ask you again, how are you defining the word 'till' as used in Mat 1:18

The scripture tells only up to 25 she had borne a son, Nothing after!

josef * "So Michal, the daughter of Saul, remained childless throughout her entire life." That's the way I read it.

Concerning the word 'to'

"teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, TO the close of the age." MT 28:20

After the age to come , he will no longer be with us, according to your logic.
---Ruben on 12/29/18


Cluny: There are more reasons than contraception to take the "birth control pill."//

I used them for menstrual problems.

But it isn't contraception when it is used for medical uses.

It like using a anti-depressant for sleeping problems or numbness.

A med is designed for one problem, but can be used for it's side effects as well.

I don't know about Roman Catholics, I was speaking about Catholic Women.

It depends on who you survey as well.

That's why I said that anyone can manipulate a survey to say what you want it say.

If you ONLY survey Pro-choice Catholics, of course 99% of them would say they use Contraception. And the 1% doesn't because they no longer have menstrual cycles
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/28/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans


There are more reasons than contraception to take the "birth control pill."

Not uncommonly is it taken to correct menstrual irregularities and other "female troubles."

Christ is born! Glorify Him!
---Cluny on 12/27/18


Nicole, a survey of 995 women in 1982 revealed that 30% of them used oral contraceptives.

Another one in 1995 showed that another 30% of over 12,000 women used the pill.

I don't know how many subjects it takes to have a "mass survey."

I have not yet been able to find a trustworthy survey about Roman Catholic women's use of the pill. Most of them repeat what the Alan Gutmacher institute said--99% of such women did so.

But that survey is hardly objective, as we both know.

Christ is born! Glorify Him!
---Cluny on 12/28/18


Just like when HHS and the Obama's Administration claiming 90% of Catholic women take birth control pills.

Another lie.

There has never been a mass survey asking women if they ever used birth control.

The Catholic Church NEVER asked Her members if they took birth control pills.

No one asked me or any women of my Parishes I attend through out the years.

That's a mortal sin.

If a Priest knows about it it's only through confess which he never told Obama or HHS.

They just want people to believe the biggest group complaining about birth control uses them at the same time.

If you think Gov Agencies doesn't lie if you are greener than I thought.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/27/18


StrongAxe: Show one verse forbidding relations for pleasure, and only allows them for procration.//

WHO SAID THAT? NOT ME!

I said: Onan accepted his obligation in marrying his brother's wife and enjoyed the relations, but MADE SURE the enjoyment wouldn't produce a child. -- Nicole Lacey 12/21/18

How did you get that from my statement above?

I said you CAN'T have one WITHOUT another!

It's you all behaving like Onan and ONLY want pleasure.

God made relations pleasurable. It is the ONLY way to be fruitful.

God made being FRUITFUL pleasurable.

HHS did lied because 100 couples DID NOT get pregnant from NFP. Maybe from the rhythm method which ISN'T PART of NFP.

Thus a lie and they knew it.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/27/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Auto Insurance


Ruben, your last post made absolutely no sense to me. Will you clarify? I will ask you again, how are you defining the word 'till' as used in Mat 1:18
Concerning 2Sa 6:23 It reads "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death." NKJV Or as the NLT reads, "So Michal, the daughter of Saul, remained childless throughout her entire life." That's the way I read it. What version are you reading from and why would you?
---josef on 12/22/18


Ruben I apologize for misspelling your name. I don't know why I keep adding the extra E. From now on I will pay more attention to the spelling when addressing you.
---josef on 12/22/18


"...he can no longer sit in his right hand." What would bring you to this conclusion Reuben? How would you define till? The same principle is referenced and explained here, "For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet..." 1Co 15:25,28
---josef on 12/21/18

Josef.

It is the same principle you are using on Lk 1:35.

2 Samuel 6:23 " And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death."

How are you defining "untill?

Did she all of the sudden had children after her death, according to you it is Yes?
---Ruben on 12/22/18


Nicole_Lacey:

Show one verse forbidding relations for pleasure, and only allows them for procration. Does your Bible include Song of Solomon?

Did you read the articles on Yibbum and Haliza? The brother DID have the right of refusal, despite your claim that he did not.

It's very convenient to claim that an official government office whose job it is to compile certain statistics is lying, just to prove your own point. Can you cite specific studies that give the 99% success rate, or that prove HHS lied?

Natural planning is NOT 100% effective to get pregnant - this is why many infertile couples resort to artificial insemination, surrogacy, and adoption. It wasn't foolproof in the Bible either. Look at Abraham and Jacob.
---StrongAxe on 12/22/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Holidays


StrongAxe, Onan accepted his obligation in marrying his brother's wife and enjoyed the relations, but MADE SURE the enjoyment wouldn't produce a child.

TEXT BOOK birth control.

//He had the right to refuse the obligation (despite your claim)//

My claim?

What part of Deuteronomy 25:5-10 do you not understand?

//I Google Yibbum and Haliza //

It supports me not you.

HHS thinks the rhythm method is included

The real study was done with 3000 couples all over the world. Only 2 women got pregnant and they admitted they didn't follow the method.

BTW, people use natural planning methods to GET PREGNANT. 100% effective.

HHS lied to force funding for birth control pills and abortions.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/21/18


"...he can no longer sit in his right hand." What would bring you to this conclusion Reuben? How would you define till? The same principle is referenced and explained here, "For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet...And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all, in all." 1Co 15:25,28
---josef on 12/21/18


josef * "She remain a virgin!" Reuben I agree, she "Mary was 'espoused' (Strong's G3423 betroth[ed] or engaged) to Joseph,

Which is my point, if she was betroth to Joseph, she would had known how she was to conceive. The angel told her she will conceive in the future!


josef * Mat 1:18 And according to scripture. "Joseph...took unto him his wife, and knew her not till (or until)

About until or til

Matthew 22:44 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet."

The same author uses the same word. Which must mean according to you, once the Lord puts is enemies under his foot, he can no longer sit in his right hand.
---Ruben on 12/21/18


Nicole_Lacey:

I mentioned Onan, specifically because his evil was that he took on an obligation but refused to fulfil it, NOT that he practiced birth control. He had the right to refuse the obligation (despite your claim) yet did not do so. Google Yibbum for levirate marriage, and Haliza for right of refusal.

HHS says: "Of 100 couples each year that use natural family planning methods, such as fertility awareness, up to 25 women may become pregnant." It's only 75% effective, not 99%. Even Russian Roulette has better odds, at 83%.

Also, what Onan did WAS "natural family planning" - he avoided conception by totally natural means, yet what he did was condemned (see above).
---StrongAxe on 12/20/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Insurance


StrongAxe, it is relevant because you CLAIMED Joseph and Onan COULD refuse or not.

So now you claim it is irrelevant?

It's irrelevant NOW because I proved you wrong.

//It is NOT a prohibition against not procreating. If it were, every family who does not have at least one child for every year of marriage is sinning//

Many people are not capable of having children. They have fertility problems.

Anyway, natural family planning is 99% effective.

//something I don't think even the anti-birth-control Catholic church would assert.//

The CC agrees with God 100%!

A man are NOT allowed to have relations with his wife WITHOUT giving 100% of himself.

Which INCLUDES his semen.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/20/18


Nicole_Lacey:

Who could or could not refuse is IRRELEVANT to my argument about Onan.

Genesis 1:28 is an exhortation to procreate. It is NOT a prohibition against not procreating. If it were, every family who does not have at least one child for every year of marriage is sinning - something I don't think even the anti-birth-control Catholic church would assert.
---StrongAxe on 12/20/18


"She remain a virgin!" Reuben I agree, she remained a virgin until Jesus was born. "Mary was 'espoused' (Strong's G3423 betroth[ed] or engaged) to Joseph, [but] before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost Mat 1:18 And according to scripture. "Joseph...took unto him his wife, and knew her not till (or until) she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." Mat 1:24,25 Biblical Marriage, or marriage in general, is not valid until the marriage is consummated.
---josef on 12/19/18


StrongAxe, only kinsmen could refuse, not brothers. Deuteronomy 25:5-10 ONLY applies if the widow DIDN'T have a son.

Onan was mad because of V6. Ruth 4:5-6 explains the anger: Then I cannot redeem it because I might ENDANGER MY OWN ESTATE. You redeem it yourself. I cannot do it.

Onan's status is higher than a kinsman. He is a brother!

//THAT was why he was killed. Note that "declining to procreate" is never condemned elsewhere in and of itself.//

It's all in the Bible from the start! Genesis 1:28

Onan is the first to be KILL by God Personally NOT procreating.

People were committing many sins but not ALL were killed by God personally.

That's how much God doesn't like Birth control!
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/19/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Dating


Nicole_Lacey:

1. Yes
2.A. Yes
B. Yes
3. He only changed his mind AFTER the angelic visitation explained the circumstances of Jesus' conception. Would he have divorced her later? Probably not. However, that's not the issue.

Nowhere does God tell Mary that she must never have relations with Joseph. Nowhere does Mary say she intends to never have relations with Joseph. Nowhere does Joseph say he intends to never have relations with Mary.

The Bible specifically forbids married couples from denying each other, except for a time of prayer and fasting (1 Corinthians 1-5).

Nowhere does anything about this have anything to do with whether or not Mary would remain a perpetual virgin even after Jesus' birth.
---StrongAxe on 12/19/18


StrongAxe: Mary said she was, at that time, a virgin. She didn't say she would ALWAYS remain a virgin.//

Lets break this down. You are jump around her words. Please answer each questions.

1. Do you think Mary knew how one gets pregnant?

2. A. Do you think at the time the Angel Gabriel spoke to Mary, she KNEW she was married to Joseph?

B. And knew she would be with him soon after the Angel's visit?

//Joseph felt she broke the contract by being pregnant (i.e. not a virgin).//

3. I know that, but do you think if Mary refused to have relations with Joseph, he would try to divorce her again even though the Angel told him to marry her?

In other words, now he knows God planned this marriage for them.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/19/18


Reuben I have no idea what Mary's sexual desires were. Do you?
---josef on 12/15/18

Her desire was to remain a virgin, when she heard how it was to be then she said " let it be according to thy word.She remain a virgin!
---Ruben on 12/18/18


Reuben I have no idea what Mary's sexual desires were. Do you?
---josef on 12/15/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Treatments


"she would know how, right?" Reuben Obviously, and that was the reason for the inquiry.
---josef on 12/13/18

Are you saying she had no desire to have relations with Joseph?
---Ruben on 12/15/18


Nicole_Lacey:

Mary said she was, at that time, a virgin. She didn't say she would ALWAYS remain a virgin. Joseph felt she broke the contract by being pregnant (i.e. not a virgin).

Onan married his brother's widow under the Levirate law. If a man died without heirs, his closest kinsman would marry his widow, and their first child would be named after the deceased, and inherit his property. The kinsman COULD refuse. Onan did not. He ACCEPTED this legal obligation, yet refused to carry out his duty (i.e. fathering a child to carry on his brother's name and inheritance). THAT was why he was killed. Note that "declining to procreate" is never condemned elsewhere in and of itself.
---StrongAxe on 12/14/18


StrongAxe, every time an Angel tells a spouse they are going to have a son and they are don't ask the Angel how this is going to happen.

Mary states she knows not a man. So, she KNOWS how one conceives a child.

Even Zechariah who wasn't home KNEW the Angel meant when he and his wife had relations the child was coming.

Joseph already felt she breached the contract. But, the Angel told Joseph he had to marry Mary. Matt 1:20

//one of the functions of marriage is to have relations and have children), which was exactly the kind of disingenuous behavior that Onan was killed for.//

Onan had relations how else do you think he had semen?

He was killed for performing BIRTH CONTROL!

Genesis 38:9-10
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/14/18


Cluny:

I wasn't disputing whether or not Mary WAS perpetually a virgin (although that's a topic for another discussion). I was disputing whether or not Mary willingly entered into a marriage contract, wilfully planning in advance to never consummate it, which would have been a violation of both Jewish and Christian traditions.

It's a good way of making sure the virginal conception and birth are true.

If she consummated long after Jesus was born, that wouldn't threaten the Virgin Birth. Also, truth doesn't care about appearances. To all appearances 2000 years ago, Jesus appeared premature, hence illegitimate, and was called so by most.
---StrongAxe on 12/14/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Affiliate Program


It's a long standing tradition, StrongAxe.

Even Jean Chauvin (known more commonly as John Calvin) believed in Mary's perpetual virginity.

It's a good way of making sure the virginal conception and birth are true.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/14/18


Nicole_Lacey:

You wrote: She made a vow to God not to have relations with any man including Joseph.

How do you know this? Scripture never says this. In fact, scripture says that it's wrong for married people to withhold themselves from each other, except for times of prayer and fasting, and those are supposed to be temporary. For Mary to marry Joseph, planning in advance to never have relations with him, would have been a deliberate breach of contract (since one of the functions of marriage is to have relations and have children), which was exactly the kind of disingenuous behavior that Onan was killed for.
---StrongAxe on 12/14/18


I have never hidden that I have a special love for the Holy Mother of the Savior.

But I won't defend or discuss any Marian doctrine other than insisting that the Virgin's Son is God Incarnate.

This in itself is a new idea to some people on these blogs.

Mariology can be understood only in the context of Christology.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/13/18


"she would know how, right?" Reuben Obviously, and that was the reason for the inquiry.
---josef on 12/13/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Abortion Facts


Simple, she was asking how conceiving a child was possible without sex?
---josef on 12/12/18

The Angel told her in time to come (future) You will , she would know how, right?
---Ruben on 12/13/18


Simple, she was asking how conceiving a child was possible without sex?
---josef on 12/12/18


Even though she pledged to marry Joseph.

She made a vow to God not to have relations with any man including Joseph.

Even Mary knew you must have relations to a man to have a child.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/12/18


Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.