Mary isn't Divine, she was made pure. Just like washing a jug.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
|
Mary isn't Divine, she was made pure. Just like washing a jug.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Okay. A pure Mary, therefore, would need to come from a pure mother.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Why did arcura say this? --
Does the RCC say Mary was sinless or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Wondergirl,
As I mentioned, it is a matter of deductive reasoning that Mary had to be sinless to give birth to a pure Jesus.
Does a freshly cleaned jug come from a clean sink full of dirty dishes? No, it's washedQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
So that Christ can be born in a spiritually clean Tabernacle.Quote:
Why did arcura say this? -
Catholics believe that when Mary was conceived she received sanctifying grace at that very instant in time her soul was infused. Thus, she was exempted from the stain of original sin. In essence she received the same sanctifying graces one receives at Baptism, the removal and the effects of original sin except for the temporal punishment of death given Adam. You might say she received her sanctifying graces in advance of her Holy life. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Immaculate ConceptionQuote:
Does the RCC say Mary was sinless or not?
Wondergirl ,
Perhaps God COULD have done it that way but I think not.
The reasonj is because of the bible verses I [posted.
They indicate they imaculate conception of Mary as I and God's holy Church see it.
I'm hoping that you can understand that is why I bellieve as I do.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
JoeT,
Yes, The Church IS the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
This is one of the most ridiculous threads I've ever seen here.
You people strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.
Mary this or Mary that. Does anyone really care? It's minutiae of the worst sort.
So the Catholics believe one thing, and the Protestants believe something else. So what? What else is new? Trying to "prove" one side or the other is absurd.
Slinging Bible verses back and forth is hardly edifying. "Give the Scripture" reference/proof, one side says. The other side responds with a Scripture. But that's not the original Greek/Aramaic, whatever. Good Lord!
It goes on and on, ad infinitum.
The gnat of Mary's conception and the camel of Jesus' resurrection.
Better you all go out and feed the starving, visit the sick, and do what Jesus told you to do. Anything would be better than spending your life on a silly Internet board arguing over inconsequentials.
I'm so sorry you missed seeing the challenge and even the wonder and joy in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Wonder and joy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
You got to be kidding.
I am finally beginning to understand (not agree with, mind you) some of the RCC's teaching about Mary, thanks to JoeT's and arcura's patient postings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
It would have been a lot easier, and much more accurate, to simply have read about Catholic teaching on one of the many Internet sites that do just that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I have nothing against Joe or Arcura but they would be the first to tell you that they are not official spokesmen for the Catholic Church.
Are we really going to ridicule members for engaging in discussion here?
I agree with this...
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/1866819-post37.html
Athos,
I think it does matter if Mary was sinless, it changes everything. In my opinion it means that the Lord didn't need to die for her sins and it brings up a hosts of issues. I do agree that I am not going to change someone's mind if it made up already.
Incidentally, I did feed the hungry, yesterday... I do visit the sick and encourage them. I serve people all the time and I still have a few min. to discuss christianity on AMHD.
JoeT777,
I have decided to start calling someone else grumpy... ha ha and you Uncle Backwards... your thinking is screwed up anyway. :D
Better luck next time. None of these scriptures you have quoted say anything about Mary being anything other than what she was. A young woman betrothed to be married to Joseph Whom God showed favor on by allowing her to be a vessel to carry my Lord into this world.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
This is from an improper use of the rating system in post #28
elscarta disagrees : Read Luke 2:21-23. Jesus is preesented as Mary's firstborn. Mary at that time had an only child!
Elscarta, this has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Do I have to post it in it's entirety for you to actually read? Vs 23 Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord. There is no argument to that statement.
What is being discussed here is the use of the word "firstborn" In all circles and especially from the hand of Luke, a very learned man for the day, and a Doctor to boot firstborn indicates that Mary also bore other children. This is NOT a slip of the tongue. It is accurate. Mary had other children fathered by Joseph. Why is that so difficult for certain people to comprehend?
Yup! You and I don't deserve the reddie (I got the same thing you did, same words). Luke wrote about the birth years later. He knew Mary had had more children after Jesus. You are exactly right, donn.Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
There IS NO POOF that Mary had any children after she had Jesus.
The Church that is the pillar an foundation of the truth says that she did not have any.
I think that it knows what it is talking about.
Peace and kindness.
Fred
OK Fred, since you refuse to read the word of God in it's entirety and instead listen to the teachings of the RCC, there is no reason for further discussion on this subject. Your answer says it all!
Fred,
NO PROOF that the Lord Jesus had brothers? The bible records it!. because you want to explain it away because it doesn't FIT your theology is your right I guess but check it out...
NKJV) reads, “When He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, 'Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is this not the carpenter's Son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?' So they were offended at Him. But Jesus said to them, 'A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.' Now He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief.”
Then again in Mathew:
“While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him, 'Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.' But He answered and said to the one who told Him, 'Who is My mother and who are My brothers?' And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, 'Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.'”
Plus there are other places the Bible speaks of his siblings. I'm not sure what you do with all those scriptures. You all must have a big black marker to mark it out or maybe some white out. Lol because it is THERE. As far as proof goes... The Bible records it... I have no other authority.
Actually the question was raised in this post as to whether Mary had any other children. One of the arguments presented to support this is that the term "firstborn" cannot be used for an only child. This argument is presented in the form of a syllogism:
Major Premise: An only child cannot be called "firstborn"
Minor Premise: Jesus was called "firstborn"
Conclusion: Therefore Jesus is not an only child.
While the structure of the argument is valid (logical) the argument is only sound (true) if both of the premises are true.
The Minor Premise is true (Luke 2:23) but the Major Premise is not.
To prove that the Major Premise is not true I will use the method of "Proof by Contradiction", that is I will assume that the Major Premise is true and show how this leads logically to a contradiction, and I will do it based entirely on Scripture to satisfy those who will not accept the authority of anything else.
Firstly let us examine Luke 3:22-23
22When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord")
Clearly Jesus was Mary's "firstborn" according to the Law of the Lord ;
Exodus 13:2
Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.
In Numbers 3:40
Then the LORD said to Moses: “Number all the firstborn males of the children of Israel from a month old and above, and take the number of their names."
From this we see that the consecration of the "
From this we see that the consecration of the " were to be males as young as one month old. Now at one month of age, a baby has no other siblings (unless from a multiple birth e.g. twins) and thus is an only child. But assuming that the Major Premise is true, an only child cannot be " were to be males as young as one month old. Now at one month of age, a baby has no other siblings (unless from a multiple birth eg twins) and thus is an only child. But assuming that the Major Premise is true, an only child cannot be " so only baby males from multiple births (twins etc) need to be concencrated according to the Law of the Lord.
But Jesus was presented in the temple according to the Law of Lord, (Luke 2:22-23) yet he wasn't a twin. This is a contradiction and therefore the Major Premise is false.
An only child can be called " so only baby males from multiple births (twins etc) need to be concencrated according to the Law of the Lord.
But Jesus was presented in the temple according to the Law of Lord, (Luke 2:22-23) yet he wasn't a twin. This is a contradiction and therefore the Major Premise is false.
An only child can be called ".
This does not mean that I have shown that Jesus has no other siblings, just that the argument presented regarding ".
This does not mean that I have shown that Jesus has no other siblings, just that the argument presented regarding "is not a sound argument.
Luke wrote his Gospels years after Jesus had left the Earth and thus knew that Jesus had had other siblings, thus his use of "firstborn."Quote:
Originally Posted by elscarta
You missed the point of my posting. You cannot use the fact that Luke called Jesus Mary's firstborn to support your argument that Jesus had other siblings as I have shown that an only child is still a "firstborn".Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
There are two possibilities:
Jesus had other siblings. Jesus would thus be "firstborn"
Jesus had no other siblings. Jesus would still be called "firstborn" as I have shown in my previous posting.
Thus that fact that Luke called Jesus "firstborn" sheds no light on whether Jesus had any other siblings!
If you still think that an only child cannot be called "firstborn" then please point out the error in my argument in my previous post, otherwise stop insisting that Luke called Jesus "firstborn" because Jesus had other siblings. Luke would still have called Jesus "firstborn" even if he had no other siblings!
And finally there actually is a third possibility. Joseph may have had children from a previous marriage and may have been a widower when he married Mary.
This means that even if Jesus had other siblings, Mary could still be "Ever Virgin".
You may prove either side with scripture, it depends on how you wish to define s various usage of greek words and their translations.
450donn,
Please do NOT accuse me of not reading the bible, all of it because I do and have for a long time.
Fred.
Joseph's having other children and Mary never producing any children other than Jesus has nothing to do with Mary's being a virgin or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by elscarta
Wondergirl,
THAT is and interesting observation.
Thanks,
Fred
What seems to be lost in this argument is the fact that once Mary had borne Jesus she was no longer a virgin since by definition a virgin is a female who has not had sexual relatiosn but also has not had a child, you cannot say a woman who has had a child is a virgin. To have have a child is not something unrighteous even Scripture says a woman a woman who has had a child can be savedQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I disagree. A virgin can have a child and still be a virgin if she has never had intercourse. The penetration, not the childbirth, is what takes away the virginity.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Fred, I am truly sorry that you feel that way. But you leave me no choice but to come to that conclusion. Many many people have given you scripture references that prove Mary had other children by Joseph, but dogmatic refusal to accept the bible on this subject left me with no other conclusions. While the RCC does not hold the exclusive rights to ignoring scripture because it does not fit their teachings, it appears from your posts to be very bad in this area. Throughout the history of the church age this has happened many times, there is still no excuse for not reading and believing the entire bible. Except to control people. You have many times claim to have converted to the RCC from a protestant religion. That is merely saying that you were not catholic or Jewish prior to your conversion. I am sorry that you went from a dead religion to one that forces it's members to swear allegiance to the mother church instead of God, To force it's members to swear to raise their children in the "church" instead of bringing up your children according to the scriptures.
If you want to not become offended again, choose your words carefully and read the scriptures for what they actually say, not what your priest tells you it says and we will get along just fine.
While I agree that sometimes this is true it is not in this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
You cannot just use any definition that you want for words found in Scripture. The meanings of words must be supported by their use in Scripture.
Wondergirl and 420donn both agree that the definition of "firstborn" excludes an "only child", yet they have not once posted any reference in Scripture to support their definition.
The reason for this is that there is no support in Scripture for their definition in fact as I have shown in my post https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religi...ml#post2281391 this definition leads to a contradiction.
Scripture supports only a definition of "firstborn" that includes an only child!
Wondergirl and 420donn, if you can find fault with my argument presented in my post https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religi...ml#post2281391 please be so kind as to point it out otherwise do you accept that your definition of "firstborn" is incorrect?
Why should I post a false pretense?
Scripture is very clear on this subject. Several times the reference is made to Jesus siblings as has been quoted already. Please go back and reread these posts.
Or start in MK 3:31, MK 3:35, and again in JN 7:5.
ALL are references to Jesus brothers and sisters.
If your religion does not support the fact that Mary had more than one child, I am truly sorry for you. Your leaders are doing a great disservice to you by not using the entire bible, and instead are picking and choosing to suit their whims, or the whims of your religious leaders. Sound like the Pharisees of 1st century Jerusalem ?
I agree with all your posts on this thread. About the conclusions that were made by Fred, but the thing is Fred thinks he talks for the church. Honestly though not all Catholics are in the same blind state as Fred is about the church.Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
The meanings for words come from a dictionary.Quote:
Originally Posted by elscarta
Yes, "firstborn" may turn out to be an only child, but when someone declares a child is "firstborn," he assumes the child is the first of several, that the child will have siblings ("secondborn" and "thirdborn" and maybe even "fourthborn"). "First" by definition means there are more to follow. Luke (or the author of the book of Luke) knew that Jesus was the firstborn or first child with more following. Otherwise, he would have said, "And Mary brought forth her only Child...."
Only in China would the term "firstborn" mean "only born."
Wondergirl, when I read the start of your postI thought "finally she understands", but then as I continued reading I realised that you still don't get it.Quote:
Yes, "firstborn" may turn out to be an only child
There are many problems with your post and I am hestitant in pointing them all out as I fear that you will do as you have done in the past and focus on only one of the points I make when all of them are important.
1. You contradict yourself
This means that there may be no more children following the "firstborn", but then you sayQuote:
Yes, "firstborn" may turn out to be an only child
2. You make assumptions about what people are assuming and present them as absolutes.Quote:
"First" by definition means there are more to follow
Do you speak for all people who declare a child "firstborn"? The least you should have said was "he usually assumes".Quote:
when someone declares a child is "firstborn," he assumes the child is the first of several, that the child will have siblings
3. You make up words to support your position.
I cannot find these words in any dictionary!Quote:
"secondborn" and "thirdborn" and maybe even "fourthborn"
4.You present a definition of a word as if there are no other possible definitions or usage of that wordI prefer: "First" by definition means that more may follow, but necessarily so.Quote:
"First" by definition means there are more to follow.
I am not the only one who uses this definition. In the following link
United Arab Emirates at the Olympics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "first" is used when there is only one.
Also try Googling "first and only" you get 146,000,000 hits!
5.Again you make an assumption and present it as an absolute.Do you really know Luke (or the author of the book of Luke) so well that you can state for certain what he would have said?Quote:
Otherwise, he would have said, "And Mary brought forth her only Child...."
Also you seem to miss the point that "Firstborn" in Jewish tradition is not just a ranking of the child in the order of birth but also "a title", "a position of honor and responsibility", with "special priviledges of inheritance and authority" as well as being "dedicated to God" and "receiver of a special blessing".
I doubt that Luke (or the author of the book of Luke) would have chosed the word "only" in place of "firstborn" as this would appear to deny Jesus all of what is listed above!
6.You state a falsehood and present it as truth.
"Firstborn" would not mean "only born" even in China! There are many families in China that have more than one child, even though China has a one child policy!Quote:
Only in China would the term "firstborn" mean "only born."
7.You have reversed the order of the "firstborn" and "only born(only child)" and so are not even discussing the same thing that I am discussing!This discussion is about whether "an only child" is "firstborn" not whether a "firstborn" child is an "only child". The order is important!Quote:
Only in China would the term "firstborn" mean "only born".
As an analogy I am trying to establish that a square can be considered a rectangle while you are arguing that a rectangle is not a square.
Please take the above criticisms in the light in which they were given; as positive critcism. While I am interested in discussions like this one, I do find it frustrating when people do not present their arguments in a logical manner and insist that they are right even when it has been shown that their beliefs are inconsistent and contradictory.
I started posting on this thread because I disagreed with the statement being made that 'Luke's use of the word "firstborn" proves that Jesus had siblings because "firstborn" cannot be used for an only child'.
As I have shown in my post https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religi...ml#post2281391 it is illogical and contradictory to exclude an "only child" from being called "firstborn".
Furthermore, I have shown in point 5 above that even if Jesus was an only child Luke would have had good reason to use the title "firstborn" when relating to Jesus.
So where does this leave us? Hopefully at the same point:
'That Luke's use of the word "firstborn" neither proves nor disproves that Jesus had siblings.'
Please do not read more into this statement than was intended. I am not saying that Jesus did not have siblings, nor am I saying that he did. All I am saying is that the proof/disproof of Jesus' siblings is not found in Luke 2:22-23.
Again, for the record, all your claims are worthless in light of
MK 3:31, MK 3:35, and again in JN 7:5.
ALL are references to Jesus brothers and sisters.
Why is it so hard to understand the word of God?
Bottom line:
Catholics don't believe the Bible.
I don't believe the RCC.
Galveston,Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
To the point and right on! They do NOT believe the Bible. It is frustrating to say the least.
I am a catholic and I do believe in the bible. Although I do also believe many people Catholics are misled. Catholics are not encouraged to pick up a bible and study for themselves. There are no bibles in catholic churches that I have been too. They teach what they want to teach, there are lots of traditions , etc... that are not biblical based which is very misleading.
I have been to many different denominations and churches growing up and still visiting other churches and will say that there are other denominations out there that clearly teach straight from the bible and encourage study of the bible, unlike the Catholic church.
Jesushelper,
You are right. AND in fairness it isn't just the Catholic church that doesn't encourage reading of the Bible either. I have visited other churches and sat in amazement at what they taught. It wasn't even out of the Bible. And I really detest someone who gets behind the pulpit with a political agenda... So didn't mean to pick on Catholics.
Now you puzzle me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesushelper76
Why do you remain a Catholic?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:19 AM. |