Enough, lets get things straight!

[Rightlydivide]

Hepiskiazō ere is all five uses of the word Joshua alludes to in his previous post

Matt 17:5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!”
Mar 9:7 And a cloud came and overshadowed them; and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son. Hear Him!”
Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, "[The] Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.
Luk 9:34 While he was saying this, a cloud came and overshadowed them; and they were fearful as they entered the cloud.
Act 5:15 so that they brought the sick out into the streets and laid [them] on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on some of them.

There is nothing sexual or spousal about the word. There is nothing sexual that happened. She was the spouse of Joseph. The comparision to pagan gods is that God did nothing sexual or anything considered spousal to bring his son into the world.

 

[Nicea325]

To Nicea–

What makes me RIGHT and “time spent believing in a truth” wrong? I’m not claiming to be right; I’m claiming that some things are wrong.

Exactly…your claim. Much like the claims of:

Gnostics,Arians,Donatists,Montanists,Adoptionists,etc,etc,etc. Tell me Joshua,where are all those sects of people who also CLAIMED the church was WRONG? Where the Arianists ‘claims’ showing the church it was wrong about Christ Divinity? Or does that doctrine sooth your beliefs and yet you reject others that conflict with your modern revisionist beliefs?

But if (by default) I’m claiming what your question suggests, then the answer would be “the same kind of proof that led to the eventual realization that the earth is round”, because the prevailing “truth” (which was supported by scolars, philosophers, and great minds & leaders of the time) was that “the earth was flat”…and NO ONE could tell them otherwise until they experienced it for themselves.

First of all,that is an entire matter dealing with what? MATTER and TIME. The issue here at hand involves an eternal plan set forth by God Himself. Either Jesus promised to guide His church through divine revelation or he lied?

But such is how we learn and grow: we’ll always know more “tomorrow” than we do today; we’ll always have more understanding today than we did “yesterday”.

Interestng,but I do not agree with your ideology because it is purely rebellious and dangerous whether you care to admit or even acknowledge. So tell me Joshua,how long before the doctrine of the Trinity is:

"…the answer would be “the same kind of proof that led to the eventual realization that the earth is round”, because the prevailing “truth” (which was supported by scolars, philosophers, and great minds & leaders of the time) was that “the earth was flat”…and NO ONE could tell them otherwise until they experienced it for themselves. "

So I ask you, Nicea, was the earth truly flat simply because a great many people believed it to be, for a substancial length of time?

First of all, the issue here at hand has nothing to do with the earth,but Mary. Second of all,the same argument can be applied to anything anyone wishes to challenge or question. Third, science was not one of the prevailing beliefs or methods of understanding our surrounding environments for centuries. You live 2,000 years apart from Christ time and at least 500 years from Enlightenment Era,which is why one can even mention it science as a plausible determining factor.

The issue at hand is Mary and God,not the earth.

 

[jmcrae]

:ehh: Seriously!? And then she would be indignant (disrespectful) to an high-ranking Angel of God to boot, essentially saying “no duh”? This to the same angel that Zachariah disrespected just six months earlier (which was why Zach was stricken deaf and mute); the angel Gabriel? This answer isn’t biblically supported.

Mary, being without sin, would surely have found a respectful way to phrase it, but she certainly would not have been surprised to hear that some day she will become pregnant.

---

[So when **Adam knew his wife

this was a “perpetual condition” also, right, (because the same phrasing style is used here)? He would perpetually “know” Eve once they started (never ending; never giving time for gestation or giving birth, not to mention that both would tire themselves, maybe get hungry)?]

Adam and Eve appear to have populated the continent of Africa during their lifetime, so, yes, once they started “knowing” each other, they made it a habit of their marriage.

---

Mary uses the indefinite article “a” and the conditional modifyer “since”. She did not say “I know not man”. While talking with Gabriel she asks, “how can this be since I know not a man?” Which is a perfectly legitimate question because she currently understood that without a man, she - a woman - could not narurally get pregnant.

L

uke 1:34 “εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον· πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;”

Luke 1:34 (direct greek translation) “Said then Mary unto angel, ‘how will be this since a man not I know’”

She is not stating a perpetual condition but asking “how” based on her current situation.

I am simply pointing out that her current situation was that she was about to be married in a very short time.

“until” is a preposition (one of the few prepositions) that EXACTLY explains what happens after a determined “point of continuance”. Here’s a link to an earlier post that explains what a “Point of Continuance” is as it relates to the preposition “until”:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6789506&postcount=42

And again, according to this kind of logic, Michal must have started giving birth to David’s children after she died.

Replacing “know” with “sex”, let’s reread the passage:

Matthew 1:24-25 “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him and took unto him his wife. 25 And sexed her not till she had brought forth her son, and he called his name Jesus.”

We still see nothing that indicates either way what happened afterwards. The Holy Tradition tells us that she followed her Master’s example by remaining a lifelong virgin, which is how it comes that the Apostles referred to her with the title “Virgin” (which is only given to those who die in the state of virginity; one does not refer to “the Virgin Elizabeth” because we know that although at some point in her life Elizabeth was a virgin, we also know that she did not die in that state - however, we refer to the Virgin Agnes and the Virgin Barbara, because those two brave young women died in the state of virginity - and we see that in the same way that they spoke of the Virgin Agnes and the Virgin Barbara, they also speak of the Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus, whenever they refer to her in their poetry, songs, and in the Creed.

 

[vera_dicere]

Just to jump into this:

I was always under the impression that Joesph was a much older man, like in his 40s, which medically was rather old back then, especially if you were in hard labour type work as opposed to a cushier job. I was also under the impression that Mary would have been about 14. Such age differences were normal back in the day.

I was educated as to their ages by historians and various clergy. So correct me if I’m wrong.

My point is, and with all due respect to St. Joseph, given his age, given the time he was living, how do we even know he was able to consumate their psuedo marriage?

And so many people say “oh, Mary and Joseph had x number of kids”.

We know from bibical records that Jesus was their only son by the age of 12. Luke 2: 39-52.

So that would have Joesph in his 50s, and yet there were no other mention of other children in their family. And you’d think that if they had other kids that they’d say “Oh, and by the way fellow extended family members, please look after our 20 other kids”.

Now, one could argue “well, just because they had no other children doesn’t mean they didn’t have sex”, but considering that these same people are often pointing out to certain taken out of context scripture saying Jesus had x number of siblings - well, if that’s wrong, then chances are Josesph and Mary didn’t have sex.

And to be perfectly blunt, when people start harping on about how Mary wasnt’ a virgin and we all know that for 1500 years the Church was united on the fact she was a virgin, forever and ever, well, for 1930 odd years the Church was united on contraception being wrong. So I dont’ tend to take much stock in what a few people out to besmirch our Lady say. But i do find it sad, its common knowledge that to offend a Jewish man one just need attack His mother, and when people start at Mary’s purity, they don’t seem to be doing it with intent to provide dialouge or to have a good truth seeking discussion.

It might just be me, but such claims by the non-Catholic Christians always seem to look like a filthy smear campaign.

 

[benidict]

And why is it so difficult to believe you are not God? You are setting up yourself to be the Judge of Truth and you are to blind to accept it.

Wrong! I do not ACCEPT your poor biblical exegesis Joshua.Why should I listen to you? Why should accept your theological methods of interpreting scripture? What makes you RIGHT and 2,000 years incorrect?

And your statement leads me to believe you think remaining an ever-virgin is unnatural and against God’s? Again, sorry,but your human carnal beliefs are leading you in a massive error. Go ahead and accept a NOVEL belief because it is and nothing you say or rave about will change what the early church taught and believed.

wow! nicea, you have seen the same thing i do. this is interesting. glad im not the only one. i amost didnt write that post, thinking i was mis interpreting him. thak you for the validation. Peace

 

[benidict]

Signs ARE for unbelievers as believers don’t need them.

But with respect, Ben, your comment about testing God is what I mean about errors…where did you hear that its forbidden to prove God? I know where I first heard it; it was a common saying among people in the church.

…Most people are refering to where the Lord said “don’t put me to the test”. But look at these verses:

Deuteronomy 6:16 “You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah.”

Now we can take the first part of this statement out of context and determine that God doesn’t want us to test him at all, or we can take this statement in full context of the conversation that has developed and see that it applies to Exodus 17:7, when the sons of Israel specifically tested the Lord disrespectfully by asking “Is the LORD among us, or not?” because of course the Lord was with them, he just freed them, but they were somehow uncomfortable with their conditions.

Matthew 4:7 (Luke 4:12) "Jesus said to him, “On the other hand, it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.”

What did satan tell Christ to do to put God to the test in the prior verses? He told Him to jump off a cliff. This is again disrespectful to the life God gave. One should NEVER test God in this way; to directly put oneself in harms way just to force God to take action; or to purposely do something dumb to elicite a response, as if God’s our errand boy or servant.

…but look at what God has said in this reference…

Malachi 3:10 “Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this,” says the LORD of hosts, “if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows.”

…the situation referenced was specifically concerning tithing, but read what the Lord specifically said. Why would he say “put me to the test” it in this instance if such was altogether forbidden? Prophets even pit pagan priests (and their gods) against God (without His direct approval) to prove God.

ALL scripture must syncronize and not contradict…yet on the surface Malachi 3:10 would contradict what God said earlier in Deutoronomy if taken out of context, until we read the earlier passage and see that there was a level of disrespect to the request of proof.

In 2 Timothy 2:15 The Father inspired Paul to tell us to “Diligently study [not just read the scriptures] to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing [dissecting] the word of truth.”…to John 14:13] "ask anything in [Christ’s] name and [He] would do so [but only so] that the Father may be glorified."…and (James 1:5) “If any of [of us] lack wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.”

We must (1 Thessalonians 5:21) “examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good”. The original version of this passage uses the word prove (test).

---

And understanding my Titanic parallel, you should relate “starting a new denomination” to those “abandoning ship (only to be stranded at sea)”. The answer isn’t to abandon ship or to be the new head of any new religion…the answer is simply to correct our mistakes. And concerning the wisdom of the Church fathers, isn’t it written…

1 Corinthians 1:26-30:

[Siblings], think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

This has always been God’s M.O., and God’s never changes. So where would the next new revelation from God to his Church come from: from one at the top, or from someone lowly at the bottom?

there is so much that could be said here, i wouldnt even know where to start. a sign would do you no good my friend. even if the Blessed Mother appeared to you herself. and she specifically stated she was Ever Virgin. you would deny it to her face. even if someone returned from the dead. and gave you this message. you would not believe. we have the apostles and the Church Fathers, who you apparently think went astray. if they are not enough. then abraham was wrong to tell the rich man in hell, that if his brothers would not recieve moses and the prophets, even one from the dead would not convince him. no i will not ask for a sign and temp the Lord our God. even when isaiah prophecied the Virgin Birth, he told the king. “ask for a sign.” and the king stated. “no i will not tempt the Lord.” the same thing i am telling you. persist in this, and you could be open for satanic deception my friend. perhaps it is time to find a spiritual authourity, and not lean unto you own understanding. just some advice Peace

 

[jmcrae]

Just throwing this out there, but for me, the most natural interpretation of “brothers and sisters” depends on the context. If I am at home and hear that, I think of my biological brother and sister. If I am at church, I think of the community (not a blood relative). And, I am using the 20th / 21st century perspective.

And there are a great many of us living in the 21st century who have brothers and sisters at home with “Mom” and/or “Dad” who aren’t actually related to us by blood at all. It’s just the easiest way to describe “those other people of my same generation who live in my parents’ house with me, who borrow my clothes and break my toys.”

And when we’re in Church, when I hear someone use the word “Brother” or “Sister,” I expect to turn around and see a consecrated Religious in his or her habit; not a blood relative of the person speaking.

The disciples and other followers of Jesus are often referred to in the New Testament as “brothers” and yet no one thinks they were related to each other by blood - seriously, is there anybody out there who thinks the 5,000 who were converted at Pentecost were all born of the same mother? And yet, Peter addresses them as “my brothers.”

 

[AmateurPianist]

But i do find it sad, its common knowledge that to offend a Jewish man one just need attack His mother, and when people start at Mary’s purity, they don’t seem to be doing it with intent to provide dialouge or to have a good truth seeking discussion.

This one point I just don’t get.

Since when is marital sex impure and since when is saying that a married person has sex an attack at her purity and an insult.

Nobody is saying that Mary had premarital sex or slept around. Now that would be an attack on her purity.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by JonNC
The reason you were not “taught” it is because it is not doctrine in Lutheranism, though it is implied in the Confessions. Since you were raised Lutheran, I suspect that you already knew that it is adiaphoron.

I used the word “taught” (your quotation marks) to indicate my lutheran catechism. And, no, the semper virgo was NOT presented as adiaphoron. The subject was dealt with directly as a strictly Catholic belief and NOT open to conscience.
You certainly enjoy arguement for argument’s sake so I have nothing further to say to you.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

This one point I just don’t get.

Since when is marital sex impure and since when is saying that a married person has sex an attack at her purity and an insult.

Nobody is saying that Mary had premarital sex or slept around. Now that would be an attack on her purity.

Sugah, it has NOTHING to do with your assumption that we think marital sex is 'impure".

It has everything to do with JESUS. This is not about Mary, it’s about Jesus and who He is and what He said, and did, and taught. It is through the foreshadowing of the Old Testament, through typology (the Ark of the Covenant), through the mystery of Revelation (the book in the Bible), and through the authoritative oral teaching and implicit Scripture in the ENTIRE Bible that we know that Mary remained ever-Virgin, not because marital sex is bad (it is NOT) but because this is what is required of her in her role as the Theotokos (God-bearer).

To us as Catholic Christians, Mary’s primary spousal relationship was with God. As such, this would ‘supersede’ any purely ‘earthly’ relationship, not because the ‘earthly’ one was bad but because the ‘heavenly’ one was better. It isn’t a question of calling marital sex bad, but of saying that her heavenly spousal relationship was ‘better’ than the earthly one. If we are faced with a choice of two good things, but one is ‘better’ than the other spiritually speaking, should we not choose the better one?

 

[scooter469]

While I totally agree with you guys (and this was a BIG block for me when I was becoming catholic) I never thought about it that way before! I mean, think about it! You are charged with the duty of raising the SON OF GOD. Are you really going to have other children and divide your attention or devote yourself wholly to that task?! Wow!! You really made me think there! Awesome post!

 

[AmateurPianist]

Sugah, it has NOTHING to do with your assumption that we think marital sex is 'impure".

It has everything to do with JESUS. This is not about Mary, it’s about Jesus and who He is and what He said, and did, and taught. It is through the foreshadowing of the Old Testament, through typology (the Ark of the Covenant), through the mystery of Revelation (the book in the Bible), and through the authoritative oral teaching and implicit Scripture in the ENTIRE Bible that we know that Mary remained ever-Virgin, not because marital sex is bad (it is NOT) but because this is what is required of her in her role as the Theotokos (God-bearer).

To us as Catholic Christians, Mary’s primary spousal relationship was with God. As such, this would ‘supersede’ any purely ‘earthly’ relationship, not because the ‘earthly’ one was bad but because the ‘heavenly’ one was better. It isn’t a question of calling marital sex bad, but of saying that her heavenly spousal relationship was ‘better’ than the earthly one. If we are faced with a choice of two good things, but one is ‘better’ than the other spiritually speaking, should we not choose the better one?

Right.

I was responding to post# 82.

In this post I read the phrases “besmirch Our Lady”,“start at Mary’s purity”,“filthy smear campaign”.

Why are these phrases used? Well they are a response to other posters claiming that Mary had marital sex when married to Joseph.

So…these phrases just beg the questions of since when is claiming that a married woman having sex with her husband some type “besmirching”, or some type of attack on her purity, or some type of “filthy smear campaign”.

Going over-the-top in language used here is not helping to advance the argument y’all wish to make.

Yes I can understand your argument that it is “all about Jesus”. But I don’t see why I can not have the same beliefs concerning Jesus Christ while having no opinion on and not particularly caring about whether His mother had sex with her earthly husband after Jesus Christ was born. And if it is “all about Jesus” can y’all just please stop the language of “besmirching”, attach on her purity, and “filthy smear campaign”. That sort of goes against the point you are wanting to make here.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Right.

I was responding to post# 82.

In this post I read the phrases “besmirch Our Lady”,“start at Mary’s purity”,“filthy smear campaign”.

Why are these phrases used? Well they are a response to other posters claiming that Mary had marital sex when married to Joseph.

So…these phrases just beg the questions of since when is claiming that a married woman having sex with her husband some type “besmirching”, or some type of attack on her purity, or some type of “filthy smear campaign”.

Going over-the-top in language used here is not helping to advance the argument y’all wish to make.

Yes I can understand your argument that it is “all about Jesus”. But I don’t see why I can not have the same beliefs concerning Jesus Christ while having no opinion on and not particularly caring about whether His mother had sex with her earthly husband after Jesus Christ was born. And if it is “all about Jesus” can y’all just please stop the language of “besmirching”, attach on her purity, and “filthy smear campaign”. That sort of goes against the point you are wanting to make here.

But you see, if Mary has chosen the ‘greater good’ because she has a heavenly spousal relationship, then even though the ‘earthly relationship’ would normally be a good as well, taking the ‘lesser good’ would actually be wrong.

Suppose God says to you, "I wish you to be celibate.’

You however would rather marry. While marriage is normally a good, if God Himself asked you to be celibate, for you to disobey Him, even to do a normally good thing, would be wrong. Not because marriage itself is bad, but because GOD had asked you NOT to choose that marriage. Do you understand?

So that even though you were doing a ‘good’ (marriage), doing it when God asked you to be celibate would be wrong.

If God asked Mary to be His spouse, and to have a heavenly relationship, and not to take up the earthly relationship instead (even though marriage is a good thing). . .if Mary had disobeyed Him, she WOULD have been doing wrong, even though she may have been married to Joseph on earth and if she had NOT been in a spousal relationship with God, would have been ‘right’ to have a spousal relationship with Joseph.

So yes, it is an attack on the purity of Mary (not in regard to SEX per se) but in regard to the purity of her perfectly conforming to God’s will. If she is the mother of the Son, she is the Spouse of the Spirit as well. . . and as such, chosen for a heavenly spousal relationship. To disregard that and to seek the earthly relationship would be a disobedience. Of course, it is hard for us to understand (no other woman is both spouse of God/mother of God) but again, it is necessary to the understanding of Jesus to know that Mary remained obedient to God and that engaging in spousal relations with someone other than God would have been a disobedience and the DISOBEDIENCE would be the besmirching of Mary’s purity.

Unfortunately this is a difficult misunderstanding to correct as ‘sex’ seems to be so overwhelmingly important to contemporary society. The concept of purity, for example, seems to many to be limited only to sex, but it is not.

 

[Joshua27]

To Nicea–

Exactly…your claim. Much like the claims of:

Gnostics,Arians,Donatists,Montanists,Adoptionists,etc,etc,etc. Tell me Joshua,where are all those sects of people who also CLAIMED the church was WRONG? Where the Arianists ‘claims’ showing the church it was wrong about Christ Divinity? Or does that doctrine sooth your beliefs and yet you reject others that conflict with your modern revisionist beliefs?

[Strategy: Association through labels (instead of addressing the issue)]

First of all,that is an entire matter dealing with what? MATTER and TIME. The issue here at hand involves an eternal plan set forth by God Himself. Either Jesus promised to guide His church through divine revelation or he lied?

Matter and time…? Whether Mary had (physical) marital relationship with her husband is no longer a “matter” issue? And the fact that you insist to state that “for 2000 years…”, is no longer a “time” issue?

Interestng,but I do not agree with your ideology because it is purely rebellious and dangerous whether you care to admit or even acknowledge. So tell me Joshua,how long before the doctrine of the Trinity is:

"…the answer would be “the same kind of proof that led to the eventual realization that the earth is round”, because the prevailing “truth” (which was supported by scolars, philosophers, and great minds & leaders of the time) was that “the earth was flat”…and NO ONE could tell them otherwise until they experienced it for themselves. "

…So then you bring up another topic when you thought my additional topic about the flatness of the earth was irrelevant to the conversation? Double standard.

First of all, the issue here at hand has nothing to do with the earth,but Mary. Second of all,the same argument can be applied to anything anyone wishes to challenge or question. Third, science was not one of the prevailing beliefs or methods of understanding our surrounding environments for centuries. You live 2,000 years apart from Christ time and at least 500 years from Enlightenment Era,which is why one can even mention it science as a plausible determining factor.

The issue at hand is Mary and God,not the earth.

You miss the point…It’s not about science, but about perception. In other words, people see what they want to see.

Just to jump into this:

I was always under the impression that Joesph was a much older man, like in his 40s, which medically was rather old back then, especially if you were in hard labour type work as opposed to a cushier job. I was also under the impression that Mary would have been about 14. Such age differences were normal back in the day.

I was educated as to their ages by historians and various clergy. So correct me if I’m wrong.

My point is, and with all due respect to St. Joseph, given his age, given the time he was living, how do we even know he was able to consumate their psuedo marriage?

[First let me (again) preface by saying I’m arguing “perpetual virginity” which, while lending itself to the argument of “other siblings”, is a separate argument from “other siblings”.]

We have biblical record of many Israelite men taking wives much older than them only to father many children in their late age. Jacob comes to mind as representing the same age dynamic between he and Rachel (thousands of years before Christ).

Secondly, we know biologically that men continue to “produce” up to death (and in some instances a little past that). Not needing to get into the mechanics but Joseph wouldn’t need to “lead” to consummate. Biblical record of Lot’s daughters (thousands of years before Christ) attest to the fact that women sometimes took “lead” in that aspect.

Also, both Zachariah and Elizabeth were recorded to be “well stricken in years”, yet without a son, but we know that Zachariah had to have consummated with Elizabeth to finally create John the Baptist.

And to be perfectly blunt, when people start harping on about how Mary wasnt’ a virgin and we all know that for 1500 years the Church was united on the fact she was a virgin, forever and ever, well, for 1930 odd years the Church was united on contraception being wrong. So I dont’ tend to take much stock in what a few people out to besmirch our Lady say. But i do find it sad, its common knowledge that to offend a Jewish man one just need attack His mother, and when people start at Mary’s purity, they don’t seem to be doing it with intent to provide dialouge or to have a good truth seeking discussion.

It might just be me, but such claims by the non-Catholic Christians always seem to look like a filthy smear campaign.

And if document proof was produced, I bet it would just be considered “falsified”, right?

 

[Joshua27]

there is so much that could be said here, i wouldnt even know where to start. a sign would do you no good my friend. even if the Blessed Mother appeared to you herself. and she specifically stated she was Ever Virgin. you would deny it to her face. even if someone returned from the dead. and gave you this message. you would not believe. we have the apostles and the Church Fathers, who you apparently think went astray. if they are not enough. then abraham was wrong to tell the rich man in hell, that if his brothers would not recieve moses and the prophets, even one from the dead would not convince him. no i will not ask for a sign and temp the Lord our God. even when isaiah prophecied the Virgin Birth, he told the king. “ask for a sign.” and the king stated. “no i will not tempt the Lord.” the same thing i am telling you. persist in this, and you could be open for satanic deception my friend. perhaps it is time to find a spiritual authourity, and not lean unto you own understanding. just some advice Peace

I don’t need a sign, Ben, as I wasn’t who required confirmation from God through prayer (please reread the dialog)…But you’re right; I would (honestly) deny it if Mary appeared to me, but not because of a lack of respect of her! I would deny her because there is only one mediator (bridge; advocate; go between) between God and man. It is clearly stated…so anyone else could not be from God by default. Now if Christ appeared to me and confirmed everything you just said, then I would (without a doubt) believe in a heart beat…forsaking all other “logic”.

…You see that’s the underlying issue I’m trying to address here. How many of us are willing to - at a moment’s notice - forsake all we hold if it was proven by God himself to be wrong? I don’t things many would even in the face of God, which begs the question: what do most people worship God or religion?

You mention Moses and the Prophets. BTW, I follow Moses (establisher of the eternal Law) and the Prophets (promoters of the eternal Law). Christ also preached support of the eternal Laws. The Apostles also promoted the eternal Law as well as spread “the Gospel of Christ”. However, while the Church Fathers promoted “the Gospel of Christ” they promoted their own laws…but this is a discussion for another thread.

 

[regression]

I would deny her because there is only one mediator (bridge; advocate; go between) between God and man. It is clearly stated…so anyone else could not be from God by default.

I’m not sure if you were using Mary as a mediator only for your example, but wanted to point out the Catholic church doesn’t teach Mary is a mediator. She intercedes for us just like the rest of the saints (those in heaven and on earth).

 

[Rightlydivide]

But you see, if Mary has chosen the ‘greater good’ because she has a heavenly spousal relationship, then even though the ‘earthly relationship’ would normally be a good as well, taking the ‘lesser good’ would actually be wrong.

Suppose God says to you, "I wish you to be celibate.’

You however would rather marry. While marriage is normally a good, if God Himself asked you to be celibate, for you to disobey Him, even to do a normally good thing, would be wrong. Not because marriage itself is bad, but because GOD had asked you NOT to choose that marriage. Do you understand?

So that even though you were doing a ‘good’ (marriage), doing it when God asked you to be celibate would be wrong.

If God asked Mary to be His spouse, and to have a heavenly relationship, and not to take up the earthly relationship instead (even though marriage is a good thing). . .if Mary had disobeyed Him, she WOULD have been doing wrong, even though she may have been married to Joseph on earth and if she had NOT been in a spousal relationship with God, would have been ‘right’ to have a spousal relationship with Joseph.

So yes, it is an attack on the purity of Mary (not in regard to SEX per se) but in regard to the purity of her perfectly conforming to God’s will. If she is the mother of the Son, she is the Spouse of the Spirit as well. . . and as such, chosen for a heavenly spousal relationship. To disregard that and to seek the earthly relationship would be a disobedience. Of course, it is hard for us to understand (no other woman is both spouse of God/mother of God) but again, it is necessary to the understanding of Jesus to know that Mary remained obedient to God and that engaging in spousal relations with someone other than God would have been a disobedience and the DISOBEDIENCE would be the besmirching of Mary’s purity.

Unfortunately this is a difficult misunderstanding to correct as ‘sex’ seems to be so overwhelmingly important to contemporary society. The concept of purity, for example, seems to many to be limited only to sex, but it is not.

Mary is not God’s spouse. The Bible does not teach it and neither did any of the Apostles afterwards. You will find that developing later. They do not have a heavenly relationship that has spousal components. There is simply no proof of that

 

[Joshua27]

I’m not sure if you were using Mary as a mediator only for your example, but wanted to point out the Catholic church doesn’t teach Mary is a mediator. She intercedes for us just like the rest of the saints (those in heaven and on earth).

With respect, Regression, please research the definitions of “mediator” and “intercessor”.

Mediator = A negotiator who acts as a link between parties

Intercessor = A Mediator; a negotiator who acts as a link between parties

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Mary is not God’s spouse. The Bible does not teach it and neither did any of the Apostles afterwards. You will find that developing later. They do not have a heavenly relationship that has spousal components. There is simply no proof of that

Really? Then what exactly is Christian teaching on the subject? I actually find many early Church Fathers teaching her spousal relationship with God. And actually, the understanding of "Trinity’ and indeed the understanding of “The Bible” took centuries to develop fully, but certainly the apostles had an understanding of both of these that is not contradicted by later fuller development.

Revelation and Old Testament typology bear out Mary’s spousal relationship with God.

 

[regression]

With respect, Regression, please research the definitions of “mediator” and “intercessor”.

Mediator = A negotiator who acts as a link between parties

Intercessor = A Mediator; a negotiator who acts as a link between parties

I’m just telling you what the Catholic church teaches regarding Marry / mediator / intercessor.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p4s1c2a2.htm#2674

2674 Mary gave her consent in faith at the Annunciation and maintained it without hesitation at the foot of the Cross. Ever since, her motherhood has extended to the brothers and sisters of her Son "who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties."28 Jesus, the only mediator, is the way of our prayer; Mary, his mother and ours, is wholly transparent to him: she “shows the way” (hodigitria), and is herself “the Sign” of the way, according to the traditional iconography of East and West.

And, I did look up the definitions of the words:

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mediator
mediator:
1 : one that mediates; especially : one that mediates between parties at variance
2 : a mediating agent in a physical, chemical, or biological process

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intercessor
intercessor:
1 : the act of interceding
2 : prayer, petition, or entreaty in favor of another