 |
I wonder why you are unconvinced. Do you deny the Scripture which says that James and Joseph are the children of Mary of Clophas?Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Do you deny the Scripture that says that Mary of Clophas is the sister of Mary the Mother of our Lord?
If Scripture doesn't convince you, what will? Obviously you are clinging to man made tradition or else you would be able to provide the Scripture to refute this.
I concur.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
[QUOTE=De Maria;1643347]I wonder why you are unconvinced. Do you deny the Scripture which says that James and Joseph are the children of Mary of Clophas?
Chapter and verse, please.
Try these on for size.
John 20:17
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
(KJV)
Matt 11:27
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
(KJV)
Luke 10:22
22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.
(KJV)
John 14:28
28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
(KJV)
Define "God" as applies to the birth of Jesus. I know, not on topic, but someone touched on it in an earlier post.
[QUOTE=galveston;1646190]Sorry, I assumed you had read my previous response on this topic. Here it is again:Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
According to some, Scripture attests that Jesus had brothers, sons of Mary. They base their opinion on this verse:
Matthew 13 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:
First, we see that Jesus' mother has a "sister". From Catholic Tradition, we know that Jesus' mother is an only child. So, her sister is really a cousin or other close kin:
John 19 25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.
We also note that this Mary is always mentioned with Mary Magdalen. The two must have been close friends:
Mark 16 1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought sweet spices, that coming, they might anoint Jesus.
Note that in this verse she is not called Mary of Cleophas, but Mary the mother of James.
Mark 15 40 And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph, and Salome:
Here she is the mother of James and Joseph and Salome. The mention of Salome explains the "sisters" of Jesus. Since Mary the sister of Mary His Mother is also His sister or kin.
Matthew 27 56 Among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
Luke 24 10 And it was Mary Magdalen, and Joanna, and Mary of James, and the other women that were with them, who told these things to the apostles.
Sometimes she is called "the other" Mary.
Matthew 27 61 And there was there Mary Magdalen, and the other Mary sitting over against the sepulchre.
OK, so far we've established that James and Joseph are the sons of the other Mary. Not of Jesus' mother.
What about Simon and Jude.
Luke 6 16 And Jude, the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, who was the traitor.
Well, Jude is the brother of James. He says so himself:
Jude 1 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James: to them that are beloved in God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called.
And, although Simon the Zealot is rarely mentioned, when he is mentioned, he is always grouped with either James or Jude.
Luke 6 15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who is called Zelotes,
Acts Of Apostles 1 13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James.
If we review the listing of Apostles, we will see that the Apostle mentioned as Thaddeus must be Jude and Simon the Zelotes must be Simon the Cananean:
Mark 3 16 And to Simon he gave the name Peter: 17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he named them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: 18 And Andrew and Philip, and Bartholomew and Matthew, and Thomas and James of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, and Simon the Cananean: 19 And Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
Matthew 10 2 And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, 3 James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, 4 Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
Acts Of Apostles 1 13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James.
Luke 6 13 And when day was come, he called unto him his disciples; and he chose twelve of them (whom also he named apostles). 14 Simon, whom he surnamed Peter, and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, 15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who is called Zelotes, 16 And Jude, the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, who was the traitor.
So, we see that James, Joseph, Jude and Simon are related to Jesus. But they are not the sons of Mary, but her distant kin and thus also Jesus kin.
What are you reading into these Scriptures? I don't see anything disproving the perpetual virgiinity of Mary.Quote:
Try these on for size.
Sooo?Quote:
John 20:17
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
(KJV)
Matt 11:27
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
(KJV)
Luke 10:22
22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.
(KJV)
John 14:28
28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
(KJV)
Do you mean that God the Father gave His only begotten Son that all who believe in Him may be saved?Quote:
Define "God" as applies to the birth of Jesus. I know, not on topic, but someone touched on it in an earlier post.
Otherwise, I have no clue what you are getting at.
I notice that you work some Catholic tradition in to prove your point.
The verses I posted last simply show that to call Mary the "mother of God" is convoluted reasoning.
Jesus is the Eternal Son of God and existed before Mary. Besides, Jesus NEVER referred to Himself as "God". We acknolodge Him as one of the Trinity.
Mary gave birth to only the human part of Jesus, which is the reason He referred to Himself as the "son of man".
I have read your replies to this objection before. The RC has had millennia to perfect its dogmas. That doesn't mean they are right, though.
Of course He did! What do you think the Trinity is? Trinity = God. Jesus is one Person in the Trinity. The other two Persons are the Father and the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Father = God, the Son = God, and the Holy Spirit = God. Trinity = Three Persons = God.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
The Book of John starts with the affirmation that in the beginning Jesus as Word "was with God and ...was God" (John 1:1). John 8:58, "before Abraham was born, I am!"; 10:30, "I and the Father are one"; 10:38, "The Father is in me, and I in the Father"; and 20:28, "Thomas said to him, 'My Lord and my God!'"
The Word, the second Person of the Trinity, existed before Mary. Jesus of Nazareth was a human being who did not exist before Mary. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary. If he was conceived by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, he could not have pre-existed Mary. Also, to say otherwise is to reject a transformationist christology.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
This is Nestorianism. Jesus Christ had, from the moment of his conception, both a human nature and a divine nature. In giving birth to Jesus, who had both a human and divine nature from the moment of his conception, Mary gave birth to both the human nature and the divine nature. This is why the Council of Ephesus called her "Theotokos".Quote:
Mary gave birth to only the human part of Jesus,
There's one point that needs to be made here. It's only with the discipline of Catholic Tradition (capital T/Dogma) that one can come to the fullness of the meaning in Sola Scriptura; the authority of the Holy Magisterium. Consequently, all matters of faith come from Catholic Tradition in harmony with Holy Scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
The verses quoted had nothing to do with the Blessed Virgin Mary.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Christ was God. To believe anything else is simply unchristian.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Moses was commanded to make a sanctuary wherein God would dwell. It was kept Holy; wherein the Holy of Holies resided. “And they shall make me a sanctuary, and I will dwell in the midst of them” Exodus 25:8 God's words are timeless, immortal. His Words don't begin and end. He proclaimed a priesthood that would perpetually keep his Tabernacle clean; there shall “be priests to me by a perpetual" Exodus 29:9
And it was foretold that a virgin would encompass a Man, “How long wilt thou be dissolute in deliciousness, O wandering daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth: A WOMAN SHALL COMPASS A MAN “ (Jeremiah 31:22) And when this Man/incarnate God should be encompassed in the womb of Mary, would this not make Mary the Tabernacle, her womb the Holy of Holies? May literally was full of God, full of grace. How then do you debase her and still hold her Son Holy? Would not this Tabernacle be any less immaculate then the Tabernacle kept clean by the eternal order of priests?
Mary birthed God; He was “conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Cf. Luke 1) The fact that God resided in the womb of Mary is why Mary's womb was like the Holy of Holies in Moses' Tabernacle (Cf. Ex 32-40). To suggest that God resided in an unclean temple simply would have been unimaginable in Christ's time and is as unimaginable as Moses failing to keep the Tabernacle ritually clean. Thus, we conclude that Mary received a special grace from God and made immaculate (without sin).
The RC's dogma are correct because She was commissioned by Christ, authorized by God, to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. Her faith in Christ doesn't depend on your approval; God's truth remains absolute whether you believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
JoeT
That is also from Scripture:Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Here, St. Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit recognizes that God is in Mary's womb and says:
Luke 1:43
And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
And the child in her womb also leaps for joy when she arrives. Certainly, they wouldn't have responded thus if they did not realize the Divine nature of that child.
Actually, He did. He referred to Himself as I AM.Quote:
Jesus is the Eternal Son of God and existed before Mary. Besides, Jesus NEVER referred to Himself as "God". We acknolodge Him as one of the Trinity.
That's the Nestorian heresy.Quote:
Mary gave birth to only the human part of Jesus, which is the reason He referred to Himself as the "son of man".
Neither does that mean that they are wrong. And the fact that they have succeeded for so many years lends a great deal of credence to the possibility that they are right.Quote:
I have read your replies to this objection before. The RC has had millennia to perfect its dogmas. That doesn't mean they are right, though.
Besides, we believe Jesus promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. Which lends Divine guarantee to ensure that the Church is right.
Your various replies are educational They are giving me a better understanding of what Catholics believe.
Now, one more Scripture, and I hope to move on to another related subject.
Matt 1:24-25
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
(KJV)
That word "till" says to me that Joseph took Mary as his actual wife after the birth of Jesus. What say you?
Lutherans believe this verse means the marriage was consummated after the birth of Jesus. A betrothal back then meant nearly the same as a marriage except the two didn't live together until marriage papers had been signed.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
No, this doesn’t mean that the marriage of Joseph and Mary were consecrated after the birth of Jesus. Mary was Ever Virgin. I’ll explain using the words of St. Jerome to show that the Great TILL controversy was resolved in Catholic faith over 1700 years ago. That is to say, a Virgin Mary is not a newly held tenet of the Church.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Our reply is briefly this,— the words knew and till in the language of Holy Scripture are capable of a double meaning. As to the former, he himself gave us a dissertation to show that it must be referred to sexual intercourse, and no one doubts that it is often used of the knowledge of the understanding, as, for instance, the boy Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem, and his parents knew it not. Now we have to prove that just as in the one case he has followed the usage of Scripture, so with regard to the word till he is utterly refuted by the authority of the same Scripture, which often denotes by its use a fixed time (he himself told us so), frequently time without limitation, as when God by the mouth of the prophet says to certain persons, Isaiah 46:4 Even to old age I am he. Will He cease to be God when they have grown old? And the Saviour in the Gospel tells the Apostles, Matthew 28:20 Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Will the Lord then after the end of the world has come forsake His disciples, and at the very time when seated on twelve thrones they are to judge the twelve tribes of Israel will they be bereft of the company of their Lord? Again Paul the Apostle writing to the Corinthians says, Christ the first-fruits, afterward they that are Christ's, at his coming. Then comes the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet. Granted that the passage relates to our Lord's human nature, we do not deny that the words are spoken of Him who endured the cross and is commanded to sit afterwards on the right hand. What does he mean then by saying, for he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet? Is the Lord to reign only until His enemies begin to be under His feet, and once they are under His feet will He cease to reign? Of course His reign will then commence in its fulness when His enemies begin to be under His feet. David also in the fourth Song of Ascents speaks thus, Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look unto the Lord our God, until he have mercy upon us. Will the prophet, then, look unto the Lord until he obtain mercy, and when mercy is obtained will he turn his eyes down to the ground? although elsewhere he says, My eyes fail for your salvation, and for the word of your righteousness. I could accumulate countless instances of this usage, and cover the verbosity of our assailant with a cloud of proofs; I shall, however, add only a few, and leave the reader to discover like ones for himself.
The word of God says in Genesis, And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and the rings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem, and lost them until this day. Likewise at the end of Deuteronomy, Deuteronomy 34:5-6 So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And he buried him in the valley, in the land of Moab over against Beth-peor: but no man knows of his sepulchre unto this day. We must certainly understand by this day the time of the composition of the history, whether you prefer the view that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch or that Ezra re-edited it. In either case I make no objection. The question now is whether the words unto this day are to be referred to the time of publishing or writing the books, and if so it is for him to show, now that so many years have rolled away since that day, that either the idols hidden beneath the oak have been found, or the grave of Moses discovered; for he obstinately maintains that what does not happen so long as the point of time indicated by until and unto has not been attained, begins to be when that point has been reached. He would do well to pay heed to the idiom of Holy Scripture, and understand with us, (it was here he stuck in the mud) that some things which might seem ambiguous if not expressed are plainly intimated, while others are left to the exercise of our intellect. For if, while the event was still fresh in memory and men were living who had seen Moses, it was possible for his grave to be unknown, much more may this be the case after the lapse of so many ages. And in the same way must we interpret what we are told concerning Joseph. The Evangelist pointed out a circumstance which might have given rise to some scandal, namely, that Mary was not known by her husband until she was delivered, and he did so that we might be the more certain that she from whom Joseph refrained while there was room to doubt the import of the vision was not known after her delivery St. Jerome, Against Helvidius 383 A.D. CHURCH FATHERS: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary (Jerome)
I agree with St. Jerome, that not only was Mary Ever Virgin, so too was Joseph. Jerome continues:
But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord's brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin. Ibid
JoeT
I said consummated, not consecrated (HUGE difference), and mentioned that is the Lutheran understanding. Their betrothal made them married in the eyes of the Jewish faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Why did the Catholic Church decide Mary couldn't have married sex? God charged Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. Does married sex taint her?
They are two different words after all.That is why you are most likely an excellent librarian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Same difference to the Catholic (or Jew). Marriage isn't wholly consecrated until it is consummated. Consummation becomes the final act of a consecrated marriage.
Sex dosen't 'taint' married individuals. Read a few of my past posts; Mary was a Tabernacle (Like that built by Moses), the Holy of Holies. She was pure because, as Mother of God She was literally full of Grace.
JoeT
To the Hebrew mind, the word "till" (i.e. heos) does not necessarily connote a change in relationship after the designated time. It only denotes what has occurred unto that time.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Read the BLB:
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Here's an example in another part of Scripture:
In fact, this is the same way heos hou continues the action of a number of instances in the LXX. For example, in Genesis 8:5 it states:
The water decreased steadily UNTIL [heos hou] the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.
Obviously, heos hou does not intend to cease the action of the main clause ("the water decreased steadily"), rather it allows that the water continued to decrease even after the tenth month. Otherwise, the earth would still be flooded.
Catholic Apologetics International
So, the sentence:
Knew her not till she had brought forth her first born son, simply means that he knew her not before she brought forth her first born son but does not necessarily mean that the relationship changed after ward.
In addition, we consider that Jewish tradition would render St. Joseph unrighteous if he had conjugal relations with Mary.
Coupled with this fact, we don't believe that St. Joseph had conjugal relations with Mary because St. Joseph is described in Scripture as a righteous man.
Matthew 1:19
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
Since God had already taken possession of Mary, St. Joseph would not have transgressed God's prior rights to Mary.
Having noticed that Mary was pregnant and that he, her betrothed, had nothing to do with the pregnancy, Joseph had either to publicly condemn her and have her put to death for adultery (Dt 22:22-29) or put her away privately. His decision was made when an angel appeared to him in a dream, saying: "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins" (Mt. 1:20-21). The angel does not use the phrase for marital union: "go in unto" (as in Gn 30:3, 4, 16) or "come together" (Mt 1:18) but merely a word meaning leading her into the house as a wife <(paralambano gunaika)> but not cohabiting with her. For when the angel revealed to him that Mary was truly the spouse of the Holy Spirit, Joseph could take Mary, his betrothed, into his house as a wife, but he could never have intercourse with her because according to the Law she was forbidden to him for all time.
Br. Anthony Opisso, M.D.
Therefore, we conclude that the sentence:
Knew her not till she had brought forth her first born son, simply means that he knew her not before she brought forth her first born son but says nothing about him knowing her after she brought forth her son.
Sincerely,
De Maria
It just seems to me that this idea of Mary as "ever virgin" puts a bad light on married sex, like she was too good for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Why? That just doesn't make any sense.
Of course it does. God comanded us to be fruitful and multiply. Why was she exempt from that? She was a human just like you and me.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
She wasn’t exempted from anything. Mary took on the role of the New Eve. She consciously accepted God’s will in obedient love. “And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be it done to me according to thy word” Luke 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid: for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Luke 1
JoeT
More like He was too good for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Ezekiel 44:2
Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.
Yes, she was the mother of Jesus, but still a human being with all the wants and needs of one. To deny her sexual feelings and desires seems counterproductive. She, of all people, would be mortified that a church decided to pronounce her, a self-described humble servant of the Lord, sinless and swept into heaven bodily.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
It’s precisely Mary’s humility that made her the handmaiden of God. She wasn’t self-described, she was acclaimed by an angel of God, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.”Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Wouldn’t the “fullness of grace” be much more heartwarming than her human desires? Any animal can reproduce. Only one woman encompassed Christ, why deny her that Glory?
JoeT
She called herself "servant." That's self-described in my book. So you are tossing away her human desires so you can put her on a pedestal? You have consigned her to a sexless life so you can call her "ever virgin"?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Any animal can reproduce? She did produce Jesus the normal way mothers have babies. Nothing was original in the process. Jesus didn't pop out of her forehead like Athena did out of Zeus's. I'm guessing she had labor contractions for any number of hours. I'm guessing they hurt like labor contractions hurt. I'm guessing she got all sweaty with the effort and probably grunted and even screamed between moans. I'm guessing she spent labor thinking and worrying about all the things we mothers think and worry about. The fact that this baby was the Son of God was probably far down on her list, after "how much longer will this labor last" and "will he nurse readily" and "will he have all his fingers and toes". There wasn't much glory going on during labor, and, according to NT stories that included mention of her, not much glory otherwise either -- no room in the inn, losing track of her Son in Jerusalem, being scolded by her Son at the Cana wedding, standing at the foot of the cross on Golgatha.
If you’re talking about here soliloquy, I don’t see the same significance. She is eulogizing God’s glory that such as her should be so honored. Are you imprinting your own bias onto Mary? Should she have been more like you to pass muster?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Yes, but how does a virgin do this and remain virgin? Remember, Mary is EVER virgin. So, you see Catholics see more of a mystery in Christ’s birth than the birth of an ordinary man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I’m sorry; I just can’t envision an all loving God bringing harm to His Mother, even in birth. Remember, we are talking about a God who became man, allowed Himself to be tortured and crucified so that you could be free of sin. Would such a God bring pain to His earthly mother? I think not. There was much more to Christ’s birth than the presence of the Magi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Aren’t you contradicting yourself? You start with saying that Mary held herself above mere mortals and now you complain of her humanity. I’m confused; which way is it to be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
JoeT
She called herself God's servant. My bias for WHAT? She was like me and that's the glory of it, of her calling.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
A virgin is a woman who has never been penetrated vaginally by a man. Mary had this Baby Jesus and was still a virgin. I have no problem with that. But why consign her to virginity and no sex life for the rest of her life? That makes it look like there is something wicked about married sex.Quote:
Yes, but how does a virgin do this and remain virgin? Remember, Mary is EVER virgin. So, you see Catholics see more of a mystery in Christ's birth than the birth of an ordinary man.
So you don't think she experienced labor contractions, didn't sweat and moan and cry out during labor? She was fully human! She wasn't upset and worried when Jesus was missing in Jerusalem? She wasn't a bit put out at first when her Son scolded her at the wedding? She wasn't heartbroken at the foot of the cross? You would deny her her humanity?Quote:
I'm sorry; I just can't envision an all loving God bringing harm to His Mother, even in birth. Remember, we are talking about a God who became man, allowed Himself to be tortured and crucified so that you could be free of sin. Would such a God bring pain to His earthly mother? I think not. There was much more to Christ's birth than the presence of the Magi.
I didn't say she held herself above mere mortals. I said she WAS a mere mortal.Quote:
You start with saying that Mary held herself above mere mortals and now you complain of her humanity.
Bottom line here.
My original point is that for Catholics, Tradition trumps Scripture. That has been fully demonstrated in the above posts, several different times and ways.
And this on a subject that has absolutely NO bearing on the Person and Lordship of Jesus Christ or our relationship with Him.
There are other Traditions that DO deal with VITAL spiritual issues, and therefore more important.
Like the Tradition of Immaculate Conception.
Gal 3:22
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
(KJV)
(Mary was saved by FAITH, just like everyone else.)
Ps 14:2-3
2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
(KJV)
Rom 3:10
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
(KJV)
Rom 3:12
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
(KJV)
Isa 64:6
6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
(KJV)
There is nothing clearer in Scripture than the universal need of salvation.
If ONE person can be born of man without a fallen nature, then ALL can be born of man without a fallen nature.
Do you deny that Mary was conceived in the ususl manner?
Once again, Tradition trumps Scripture?
This is important, because if it were possible for God to grant salvation to any human without the sacrifice of Jesue Christ, then what He did at Calvary was Unnecessary.
Which way do you see it?
You are expressing what you feel. It is difficult to express to some that those who love God with all their heart, do not need human companionship. Least of all, a sex life, to be happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
You confuse sex and love.Quote:
To deny her sexual feelings and desires seems counterproductive.
Yes, between married humans, sex is the physical expression of love. But neither St. Joseph nor St. Mary loved each other more than they loved God. They loved God more and were united to Him in a profound union. They, in fact, did not fit the description in St. Paul's lament for they who are married:
Romans 7 32But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. 34There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
They in fact, lived as he suggested that we should live:
29But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
Why? Because they lived as though they were married to God.
I doubt it. Humility does not mean a refusal to acknowledge the gifts one receives from God. In fact, that is a form of pride.Quote:
She, of all people, would be mortified that a church decided to pronounce her, a self-described humble servant of the Lord, sinless and swept into heaven bodily.
True humility proclaims the grace on has received of God and gives thanks for it.
You are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Many non-Catholic Christians believe similarly but this is incorrect. It is an "urban legend".
That is not what we've said. We've said, in so many words, that Tradition and Scripture are the Word of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
However, you seem to believe that Scripture trumps Tradition. Could you show me from Scripture?
It has a tremendous bearing in our relationship with Christ. But we read Scripture differently. As you know, we read the spirit and the letter of Scripture. Whereas you are taught to eschew the spirit and read only the letter. But this itself is against Scripture:Quote:
And this on a subject that has absolutely NO bearing on the Person and Lordship of Jesus Christ or our relationship with Him.
2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
Mary was saved by GRACE, just like everyone else. And she maintained her salvation THROUGH her faith and works:Quote:
There are other Traditions that DO deal with VITAL spiritual issues, and therefore more important.
Like the Tradition of Immaculate Conception.
Gal 3:22
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
(KJV)
(Mary was saved by FAITH, just like everyone else.)
Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
You forgot one more verse from Romans, which we should not ignore but include in order that we can get a balanced understanding of Scripture on this topic:Quote:
Ps 14:2-3
2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
(KJV)
Rom 3:10
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
(KJV)
Rom 3:12
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
(KJV)
Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Therefore, Scripture acknowledges that not all have sinned. This is confirmed in logic because we know that many have died in the womb and as infants. And they certainly did not sin before they could have intended to offend the Will of God.
Correct. That is why Mary was saved at the moment she was conceived.Quote:
Isa 64:6
6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
(KJV)
There is nothing clearer in Scripture than the universal need of salvation.
Correct.Quote:
If ONE person can be born of man without a fallen nature, then ALL can be born of man without a fallen nature.
Do you mean in a sexual relationship between Sts. Joaquim and Anna, her father and mother? No.Quote:
Do you deny that Mary was conceived in the ususl manner?
Do you mean do I believe that she was conceived without original sin on her soul? Yes.
Show me where Scripture says that she was conceived with original sin on her soul.Quote:
Once again, Tradition trumps Scripture?
As the Church teaches it.Quote:
Scripture does not say that Mary was conceived in the usual manner.
This is important, because if it were possible for God to grant salvation to any human without the sacrifice of Jesue Christ, then what He did at Calvary was Unnecessary.
Which way do you see it?
We are not necessary. God is self contained and can exist without us. Therefore if we are unnecessary, then it is certainly unnecessary that the Second Person of the Holy Trinity should need to become man and be sacrificed on the Cross to save us.
That simply shows the extent of God's love for us. That He did something for us which was unnecessary for Him. HIS LOVE FOR US IS BEYOND COMPREHENSION!
But all you say in your post is based on church tradition (with capital letters?), not with any Scriptural backing, especially specifically to Mary and Joseph. It's a lovely, romantic thought that the two of them did not live together as normal married people but walked around wearing halos and looking blessed. My idea of them is that they were deeply immersed in the everyday pleasures of work, family, and marriage, including marital sex.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
There is absolutely no Biblical evidence that they did.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Show us where it says she was conceived sinless.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Why weren't Mary's parents conceived sinless too?
Genesis 3:15 will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
The Holy Mother is the New Eve. She is the woman whose seed crushes the head of the serpent.
Luke 1:28 chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace. You can't be full of grace if you're not immaculate. Maybe the Angel was wrong? Nah!
Tradition also speaks volumes of Mary being immaculate. If you care to, I'll let you look these up yourself. (link)
And finally we have the decree of Pius IX (link)
JoeT
There is much debate regarding that interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
That's not what the "angle" meant. Are we doing geometry now?Quote:
Maybe the Angle was wrong? Nah!
As a Christian, I'm full of grace -- God's grace.
But the Scriptures never mention it.Quote:
Tradition also speaks volumes of Mary being immaculate.
Who?
I was taught that Euclid was angling for Saint Hood. So, I was help’en.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Plain Latin is too much for you? I can understand angles Greek, so what’s so hard about plain Latin to English.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Uhm What part of ‘full of grace’ do you not understand? The last I heard is it meant ‘full of grace.’ There are no angles here!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
As a Christian, I'm full of grace -- God's grace. [/QUOTE]
I've got the Church and the Apostles also. I hope you don't fly much - like on airplanes - because they aren't in Scripture either. [/QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Pope Pius IX --- Pope Pius IX ---Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
JoeT
Ummmm, it's not Latin. It's Greek. It is translated as "Yo, God has chosen you."Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
And that's your proof that Mary was sinless?
OopsQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
And I am supposed to believe you after that??Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:59 PM. |