Doesn't the Bible teach us that Jesus did have siblings??

[Peregrino]

So you agree with me that 2+2 in fact equals 4 and that Mary was a unique case. That’s all I was saying. So why think that ordinary rules and behaviours connected with marriage applied to her and Joseph? Their relationship was most certainly a unique one two.

Actually Lily, I think you are somehow getting 5. I just disagree that because you are telling me that 2+2=5 that I am being unreasonable by disagreeing with you…

I would point out that these assertions are in fact wrong in at least one particular - Joseph was NOT Jesus’ father. Jesus was NOT the carpenter’s son. So why assume any validity in the claims about siblings (assuming that the reference even is to blood siblings)

This is a non-sequitur. Just because Joseph is not Jesus’ father does not allow one to automatically conclude that Joseph did not father Jesus’ other siblings.

Do you think for a second God would allow ordinary mortal beings to inhabit the womb of Mary which had been consecrated and set apart from the beginning of time and before as His dwelling place?

Sure, why not? Using your Holiest of the Holies analogy, the High Priest (a human) entered this space at least once a year.

Why would normal marital relations between Joseph and Mary be a defiling act?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Why, Per, are you putting this huge emphasis on the word, “defile”?

No Catholic has claimed that the marital embrace, sex between a man and a woman married to each other, ‘defiles’ the woman. Or the man. But what of a woman whose child is ‘fathered’ by someone other than the man who later becomes her husband? If the child’s father is still there, still involved with the mother and child, still claiming the child as his own, then there is a ‘bond’ between that woman and the father of her child, and for her to have relations with another man, even if that man is the legal husband, would not be morally correct. Or are you thinking that God just ‘took’ an ordinary woman away from the man SHE WAS ENGAGED TO MARRY, used her like an incubator, and from then on she was NOTHING TO HIM, and could just ‘go on with her life’–while being Mother to the SON OF GOD, mind you, totally responsible for His care on earth–yes, she was just to look on His conception as being nothing out of the ordinary, just a little interlude before ‘real life’ with Joseph, and having a bunch of other youngsters to care for. Obviously, being the mother of GOD and the mother of also, say, little James, Rebecca, Joses and Hannah is a piece of CAKE. She’ll CERTAINLY be able to treat them all totally equally. The whole family will be just like the Brady Bunch. . .

Just because some people draw an incorrect conclusion, that somehow Mary’s remaining a virgin would mean that the ‘idea’ of her having ‘sex’ with Joseph would ‘defile her’, does not mean that this is the reason Catholics --nay, Christians from the very beginning through the ages–have taught Mary’s perpetual virginity. And it’s disingenuous to focus on this one ‘assumption’ and attempt to present IT as the truth, and the “TRUTH” as being a reaction to that assumption.

Mary remained a virgin for the very good Scriptural, Biblical reasons that have been posted over and over again. Incorrect assumptions and specious reasonings have nothing whatsoever to do with the TRUTH of her perpetual virginity.

 

[Nella]

Why, Per, are you putting this huge emphasis on the word, “defile”?

No Catholic has claimed that the marital embrace, sex between a man and a woman married to each other, ‘defiles’ the woman. Or the man. But what of a woman whose child is ‘fathered’ by someone other than the man who later becomes her husband? If the child’s father is still there, still involved with the mother and child, still claiming the child as his own, then there is a ‘bond’ between that woman and the father of her child, and for her to have relations with another man, even if that man is the legal husband, would not be morally correct. Or are you thinking that God just ‘took’ an ordinary woman away from the man SHE WAS ENGAGED TO MARRY, used her like an incubator, and from then on she was NOTHING TO HIM, and could just ‘go on with her life’–while being Mother to the SON OF GOD, mind you, totally responsible for His care on earth–yes, she was just to look on His conception as being nothing out of the ordinary, just a little interlude before ‘real life’ with Joseph, and having a bunch of other youngsters to care for. Obviously, being the mother of GOD and the mother of also, say, little James, Rebecca, Joses and Hannah is a piece of CAKE. She’ll CERTAINLY be able to treat them all totally equally. The whole family will be just like the Brady Bunch. . .

Just because some people draw an incorrect conclusion, that somehow Mary’s remaining a virgin would mean that the ‘idea’ of her having ‘sex’ with Joseph would ‘defile her’, does not mean that this is the reason Catholics --nay, Christians from the very beginning through the ages–have taught Mary’s perpetual virginity. And it’s disingenuous to focus on this one ‘assumption’ and attempt to present IT as the truth, and the “TRUTH” as being a reaction to that assumption.

Mary remained a virgin for the very good Scriptural, Biblical reasons that have been posted over and over again. Incorrect assumptions and specious reasonings have nothing whatsoever to do with the TRUTH of her perpetual virginity.

spin, spin, spin. Why do some of you even own a Bible?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Excuse me? I own a Bible because I love to read the sacred word of God, in context, Old Testament and New Testament.

Perhaps you’d care to rephrase your comment?

 

[Jesusstreet]

So I thought, but it appears that at least for Mary, sex would have “defiled” her (and presumably every other woman)…

That’s right, MOTHER MARY’s purity restores the world, to a purity.

I wanted to point out that in my previous post i didn’t want to imply predestination, which i don’t believe in. There is the suggestion of this in revelation. But we all have free will to choose to do GOD’s will or to do our own will. However we all understand that we have biological roots which are not our choice. It is however our choice to choose to do GOD’s will. And in choosing this, through JESUS, we are adopted into a DIVINE family and have MOTHER MARY as our mother, therefore her purity is also our inheritance. Which is why her purity is important where as Eve’s sin is an inheritance in original sin.

 

[jabelltulsa]

spin, spin, spin. Why do some of you even own a Bible?

This is not spin, but the careful, constant interpretation of Scripture by the Church. She alone has the authority to declare these things, because She is the “fullness of Truth”.

You call this spin, but it can be interpreted from Sacred Scripture, whereas other beliefs from those claiming that Mary sinned cannot be.

That question is unkind, by the way.

 

[Nella]

Ok, show me scripture verse(s) that prove the sinlessness of Mary. While you are at it, show me where she is also considered to be perpetually virgin, ahhh, how bout this one, show me where she was assumed into Heaven body and soul. You can’t prove even one of these.

 

[Nella]

That’s right, MOTHER MARY’s purity restores the world, to a purity.

Please stop. This is idolatry to a fault.

 

[Little_Mary]

spin, spin, spin. Why do some of you even own a Bible?

Because I’m a Catholic and the bible is a Catholic document.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Nella, will you please show me the Scripture that gives the list of what books are to be ‘in the Bible’, and just exactly where in the Bible it claims that all teaching is to be found in the Bible alone?

 

[Little_Mary]

Ok, show me scripture verse(s) that prove the sinlessness of Mary. While you are at it, show me where she is also considered to be perpetually virgin, ahhh, how bout this one, show me where she was assumed into Heaven body and soul. You can’t prove even one of these.

Not obligated to. Let’s see… I’ve got a 2,007 year old institution, the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth according to the bible (1 Tim 3:15) to listen to, or there’s…who was that again…oh yeah, Nella.

No contest.

See ya.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-IV

On Mary’s perpetual virginity: all from the Bible.

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-VI

On Mary’s assumption: all from the Bible.

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-IX

On Mary’s sinlessness: all from the Bible.

Here you are, Nella; the three topics, from Scripture, which you requested.

 

[jabelltulsa]

You can’t prove even one of these.

Not to be arguementative here, but YOU can’t prove the existence of Jesus.

I cannot PROVE that Mary was sinless, but I can STATE that the Church is infallable, if I believe She is. The Church teaches that she was sinless based on the OT, the NT, Sacred Tradition, and the promise of the Churches infallability. Ergo, I believe.

Just because it is unpopular, or against the ideas of the laity on sexuality and procreation, the Church should not cease from stating the Truth. That is Her job.

I challenge you to compare the Old Ark with the Mary. They both had the same purpose. They contained the Covenants (Old and New). They both had to be pure in order to be worthy to hold the 10 Commandments and Jesus.

The paragraph above is my understanding of the Teachings of the Church. There are many documents that cover this in great detail by official teachers and doctors of the Church. I encourage you to read them.

I understand you don’t agree with the teachings of the Church, but ask yourself … Are you infallable?

 

[Nella]

Not to be arguementative here, but YOU can’t prove the existence of Jesus.

I cannot PROVE that Mary was sinless, but I can STATE that the Church is infallable, if I believe She is. The Church teaches that she was sinless based on the OT, the NT, Sacred Tradition, and the promise of the Churches infallability. Ergo, I believe.

Just because it is unpopular, or against the ideas of the laity on sexuality and procreation, the Church should not cease from stating the Truth. That is Her job.

I challenge you to compare the Old Ark with the Mary. They both had the same purpose. They contained the Covenants (Old and New). They both had to be pure in order to be worthy to hold the 10 Commandments and Jesus.

The paragraph above is my understanding of the Teachings of the Church. There are many documents that cover this in great detail by official teachers and doctors of the Church. I encourage you to read them.

I understand you don’t agree with the teachings of the Church, but ask yourself … Are you infallable?

This is really where the rubber meets the road. You will trust an outside source away from scripture to keep focus on truth. I will not. This is why I am not Catholic anymore. I do not believe in the infallibility of the popes nor do I believe that the RCC i free from error.

 

[Little_Mary]

I do not believe in the infallibility of the popes …

Well you’d better stick your bible in your next garage sale, then, because it was ratified by a Pope.

 

[Nella]

On Mary’s perpetual virginity: all from the Bible.

On Mary’s assumption: all from the Bible.

On Mary’s sinlessness: all from the Bible.

Here you are, Nella; the three topics, from Scripture, which you requested.

These prove nothing, they are just more Catholic spin on the scriptures. Enoch was assumed into Heaven, scripture never says that Mary was. You cannot assume what God will and will not do. This is counter to truth. Apostolic succession does not hold that mary was assumed into heaven. This was Catholic doctrine added in excathedra way later. Again, none of this adds up, its all spin.

 

[jabelltulsa]

This is really where the rubber meets the road. You will trust an outside source away from scripture to keep focus on truth. I will not. This is why I am not Catholic anymore. I do not believe in the infallibility of the popes nor do I believe that the RCC i free from error.

Please answer my question, if you will … are you infallable?

If not, then who is? Clearly from Sacred Scripture, we see that Peter is the Rock upon which the Church was founded. And He goes on to say that the Church is infallable (gates of hell not prevailing).

Who is infallable?

 

[Nella]

Please answer my question, if you will … are you infallable?

If not, then who is? Clearly from Sacred Scripture, we see that Peter is the Rock upon which the Church was founded. And He goes on to say that the Church is infallable (gates of hell not prevailing).

Who is infallable?

Would you bet your soul that Benedict XVI is infallible?

 

[jabelltulsa]

Again, none of this adds up, its all spin.

That is your opinion. Where were those who believed as you do for all of the centuries before the reformation (where to be Christian meant to be Catholic)? The Church speaks on these things only when they are challenged.

You focus on ONLY the Scriptures, which the Bible doesn’t tell you to do. The Scriptures tell you to listen to the Church, it’s Sacred Tradition, the Sacred Scripture. They all work in harmony.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Not a Catholic ‘anymore’? That is very sad. May God bring you home. How we would rejoice with the angels that a ‘lost sheep’ was found.

It strikes me, Nella, that in one breath you condemn the Church’s claim on papal infallibility and the preservation of teaching error (both of which claims can be scripturally proven), yet you claim as your source of teaching only a book which was not formulated until 350 years after Christ’s resurrection, was not available to be read, due to lack of literacy and high cost of materials, to the ‘common person’ for another 1500 years or so, and was assembled by that same Church you condemn. Further, you continue to reject teachings of the Spirit common to all Christendom for 1500 years, teachings which even the early ‘reformers’ held, such as Mary’s virginity, and instead embrace ‘new’ interpretations, not from a legitimate authority but from people who cannot ‘prove’ that their interpretation is any more valid than that of the Church.

It just does not seem logical.

Further, anyone who was brought up a Catholic and had the inestimable privilege of receiving the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of Christ in the Eucharist at Mass, and rejects this, is not only unBiblical (according to John 6) but in danger of spiritual death, in not having the “bread of life” to eat. It’s one thing to reject an ‘idea’ of Christ which is what most Protestants have; no doubt many of them have a good and loving ‘idea’ but they lack the fullness of actually having the REAL PRESENCE available. And you reject Christ’s fullness and presence in favor of some ‘idea’, even what seems like a ‘good idea’, when you could have had not just an idea but the reality? Oh, think, Nella, think long and hard what it is you are rejecting. Go to the library here. Read the catechism of the Catholic Church–it’s on line, it’s free! READ what the Church teaches, not what you may have ‘thought’ it taught, not what somebody not even a member ‘tells you’ it 'taught. READ what it really TEACHES. Come home.