To: boatbums; bkaycee; Alex Murphy; blue-duncan; caww; smvoice; Diamond
I don't see any proof for the idea that Mary was some sort of "Temple virgin". My examples don't prove that, and I don't think that Mary was a temple virgin at the temple in Jerusalem. They show that the idea of women dedicated to God rather than to their husbands existed, if not in Saduccean Judaism then at its periphery, for example among the sects such as the Essenes. The best proof of that was in Mary's own words, "I know not man".
5,055 posted on
12/09/2010 7:16:01 PM PST by
annalex
(http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
To: annalex; boatbums; bkaycee; Alex Murphy; blue-duncan; caww; smvoice; Diamond
The best proof of that was in Mary's own words, "I know not man". She never said she never intended to not know a man. All she said is that she wasn't in a relationship with a man at the time of the angelic visit.
5,060 posted on
12/09/2010 8:20:24 PM PST by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson