57 Years Mormon

  • Thread starter Thread starter anon82300119
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
De Maria, isn’t there some debate in our Church about whether Mary’s womb was actually opened during childbirth, but that Jesus was born miraculously?
IMO her womb was opened.
 
Hope1960 said:
De Maria, isn’t there some debate in our Church about whether Mary’s womb was actually opened during childbirth, but that Jesus was born miraculously?
IMO her womb was opened.
Click to expand...
I’m not aware of the Church Teaching on this. I believe there are people on both sides. Therefore, you have a right to your opinion. But, if the Church declares one way or the other, a Catholic must submit. When the Church has spoken, the case is closed.
 
Until only speaks to what happens up to that time and nothing more by definition. As to first born, the first born child had certain rights and obligations. Luke is emphasizing this legal status of Jesus not suggesting other children of Mary’s existed. The bible does not list any child other than Jesus as being her child. The fact that He gave her to John to care for illustrates that He was an only child.
 
Hi, T!

I was responding to your inference that moving from Mormonism is not far enough if you are moving into the Catholic Church.

Regardless of the fact that you have stated on this last post, it still remains that non-Catholics continue to splinter the Body of Christ as their ideologies differ and they resolve these issues by a constant reinvention of the wheel.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
T, was it important for Scriptures to note that the Virgin had sex with Joseph of that Jesus was born of a Virgin by the Power of God, the Holy Spirit?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
tgGodsway said:
It’s kind of like the issue of Jesus being the “first-born.” It automatically implies there is a second born to which the scripture validates. But in this case, a first grace also implies a second grace, but the language is not patterned anywhere in scripture.
Click to expand...
…actually, not.

How many children did Abraham have?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
tgGodsway said:
But this Matthew 1 passage is not rocket science. The term can be compared with other uses throughout scripture and it implies the exact same thing. The context of Matthew 1:25 was all about his earthly and human family where Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary UNTIL she brought forth her FIRST BORN Son. Implying two things: (1) Joseph did have sexual relations with his wife Mary which was and is the normal thing Jewish coupled did, but unto UNTIL her first Son came. (2) A second born was implied. The word firstborn in Mt. 1:25 is a compound word where it’s root meaning is simply: foremost or first begotten. Matthew goes on later in his gospel to name the rest of Mary’s family, excluding Joseph.

The notion that these other children were brothers and sisters in the spiritual family of God, or that they were cousins, is highly unconvincing to any un-bias student of scripture because of the context in which they rest.

But, again, I don’t want to rehash this. I know it doesn’t really matter to you anyway. It has already been decreed as a revelation from God.
Click to expand...
So you are ok with Jesus, on His moment of death to rob His siblings of their obligation to care for their mother?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Hi, Hope!

I think that you are speaking to one of those “held” opinions of one of the Fathers of the Church–how Jesus’ birth was miraculous in that way… don’t think it is an officially held teaching, though.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Hi, Hope!
hope said:
The bible does not list any child other than Jesus as being her child. The fact that He gave her to John to care for illustrates that He was an only child.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what non-Catholics refuse to accept.

How many transgressions would Jesus not be committing, right from His Death Cross, if He were to simply take His mother away from His blood siblings and give her away to one of His disciples?

By what right would He be constituting a “giving away your elderly mom?”

Maran atha!

Angel
 
T, I had responded to your statement:
tgGodsway said:
Congratulations for leaving the Mormon way. Please be aware of one common thread between Mormon and Roman Catholic theology. In the same way that Joseph Smith saw the book of Mormon, Roman Catholics see her Church counsels and papal decrees.

As you know, Joseph Smith and all Mormons consider the book of Mormon a “higher revelation” than the bible. For them it is another testament, but what is meant is, it is a better testament. Again, as you know Joseph Smith rejected many foundational truths found in the bible and used the book of Mormon as an extra biblical revelation to further his spiritual convictions.

For Roman Catholics, the bible is just one of three venues to revelation. All papal decrees are brought to the level of authority as the bible. All final judgments from official Church counsels, are also brought to the level of authority of as the bible, even when there is glaring contradiction.

But there are Catholics out there, like myself who consider the New Testament as God’s final word to His Church and is more than sufficient to educate, train and grow in the knowledge of Christ. Please consider this narrow but significant issue as you explore the many flavors of Christianity.
Click to expand...
I may have wrongly understood you but it seemed to me that you were equating these two different bodies and espousing a sameness in theology which is only surpassed by your own definition and that of other non-Catholic Christians.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
There you go again, deciding for me. This is almost like a control thing. I understand more than you. I have heard the position on the “first-born” from this site. It is weak and unconvincing but I don’t stand alone, millions of Christians around the world see it at face value the way I do.

Jews may use the word “until” of Mt. 1:25 differently? really? … the original Greek word (not Hebrew or Aramaic) is heos and is used 53 other times in the New Testament. And guess what it means in those other cases?.. it means … UNTIL … can you believe it?.. it is shocking.

This is what it was meant to Matthew who wrote it, when he was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Therefore this is what the Holy Spirit wanted to communicate in Matthew 1:25.

You spin things like a pro.
 
tgGodsway said:
There you go again, deciding for me. This is almost like a control thing. I understand more than you. I have heard the position on the “first-born” from this site. It is weak and unconvincing but I don’t stand alone,
Click to expand...
And I’ve heard your position. I believe it is weak and unconvincing.
millions of Christians around the world see it at face value the way I do.
Click to expand...
Yeah, because they don’t want to bother to study and find themselves approved. If they did, they would discover that there was a whole different world back then, of Jewish culture, language, and customs which influenced the way the Scriptures were written. Not to mention the Traditions which Jesus Christ established which are the basis of the New Testament.

Until you begin to study those, you will not understand Scripture.
Jews may use the word “until” of Mt. 1:25 differently? really? … the original Greek word (not Hebrew or Aramaic) is heos and is used 53 other times in the New Testament. And guess what it means in those other cases?.. it means … UNTIL … can you believe it?.. it is shocking.
Click to expand...
Let’s start with this one.

Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death (2 Sam. 6:23).

Do you think that Michal began to have children after she died?
it is shocking.
Click to expand...
I think you’re the one in shock, right now.
This is what it was meant to Matthew who wrote it, when he was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Therefore this is what the Holy Spirit wanted to communicate in Matthew 1:25.
Click to expand...
That is what you want it to mean, therefore, “You spin things like a pro.”
 
Last edited:
The first born was very important. Dismissing this fact is a weak response.

It is funny when this argument about “until” comes up the person never supports their opinion with a source like a dictionary. Instead they point to examples with their own interpretation. The dictionary definition means up to (the point in time or the event mentioned): . Every single time it is used in Scripture that is the definition and how it is being used. When you use your own definition to prove your point you run into problems like the scripture mentioned before
“. … Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death” Same Greek word that means until. Now if you use your own definition Michal had a child after she died but if you use the dictionary definition it means she never had any child. The weak argument here is I won’t use a standard definition because it doesn’t fit what I want it to say.
What Matthew wanted to convey was that Jesus was miraculously conceived and Joseph was not responsible nothing more.
 
Last edited:
De-Maria, you said, “Let’s start with this one.
Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death (2 Sam. 6:23).
Do you think that Michal began to have children after she died?”

I’m not sure why you make this argument. It doesn’t defend the Matthew 1:25 passage written in Koine Greek. Check your translation for the word till. The Hebrew word there is an adverb translated “unto.” Okay… you want to use the word til’ Til’ what? Unto what? only the remaining part of the verse can determine this. But only the remaining part of Matthew 1:25 can determine how “until” is used.

Joseph took to himself his wife, v25, “and did not know her till…” Till what?.. till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. Okay… after she brought forth her firstborn son, THEN, Joseph KNEW her, (implying that he knew her sexually.)
 
Hope, thank you for your comments, but I just answered De-Maria on this very point.

Hope, your line of reason is almost like “crazy making.” Let me cover it briefly for you. But you can go and look at my comments to De-Maria.

Allow me to quote the verse in question: beginning in verse 24 of Matthews 1. Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, v25 and did not know her TILL she had brought forth her firstborn Son…"

The remaining part of the sentence indicates how far you will go with the word Till. Joseph did not know her (implying he did not have sexual relations with her) till… till what?.. until what?.. TILL SHE HAD BROUGHT FORTH her firstborn Son. Okay… once she brought forth her firstborn Son, the implication is very strong that Joseph THEN, KNEW HER SEXUALLY.

Anything else meant here such as the comments you made, sound unserious and ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
tgGodsway said:
Hope, thank you for your comments, but I just answered De-Maria on this very point.

Hope, your line of reason is almost like “crazy making.” Let me cover it briefly for you. But you can go and look at my comments to De-Maria.

Allow me to quote the verse in question: beginning in verse 24 of Matthews 1. Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, v25 and did not know her TILL she had brought forth her firstborn Son…"

The remaining part of the sentence indicates how far you will go with the word Till. Joseph did not know her (implying he did not have sexual relations with her) till… till what?.. until what?.. TILL SHE HAD BROUGHT FORTH her firstborn Son. Okay… once she brought forth her firstborn Son, the implication is very strong that Joseph THEN, KNEW HER SEXUALLY.

Anything else meant here such as the comments you made, sound unserious and ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Catholic teaching is that this verse is emphasizing the virgin birth of Jesus. It isn’t emphasizing the sexual activities of Mary and Joseph. It neither implies normal sexual relations or excludes it, because that is not what the Evangelist is teaching. It is teaching about Jesus, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not Joseph, and who was born of the Virgin Mary.
 
Last edited:
You cannot ignore the content of the passage and cherry pick what you want for doctrine. Joseph did not know her UNTIL the birth of Christ. The implication is over the top how Joseph and Mary had normal, God-given, marital liberties. And the key word to make this transition is the word TILL.

The scriptures goes further in Matthew’s gospel. "While he yet talked to the people, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. v47,… Your mother and your brothers and standing outside, seeking to speak with you. v48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, 'who is My mother and who are My brothers? v49 and he stretched out His hand toward His DISCIPLES and said, “here are my mother and my brothers.” Mt. 12:46-49.

Matthew goes on in chapter 13. When Jesus went back home to his own house.

"Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his BROTHERS James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And His SISTERS, are they not all with us?.. "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.

All of this is strong biblical evidence that Joseph and Mary had normal relations, as they should, as a married Jewish couple.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top