Jesus was an only son.. Mary did not have more children!!

[bosnian_muslim]

Yep. They never had sex.

Why would that be so incredible to you?

well what a marriage is that?

and why punish poor Jospeh? didnt he deserve a real marriage,you know,with sex??

ps:as a muslim i dont believe Mary was married so to us its more logical that she died as a virgin,but you guys believe she was married and virgin and thats just funny

 

[PRmerger]

well what a marriage is that?

and why punish poor Jospeh? didnt he deserve a real marriage,you know,with sex??

ps:as a muslim i dont believe Mary was married so to us its more logical that she died as a virgin,but you guys believe she was married and virgin and thats just funny

The Catholic view of marriage is that you are married when you pronounce your vows at the altar, not when you consummate it. Thus, Mary and Joseph had a valid marriage.

Mary was created for a very special purpose–to be Mother to the Second Person of the Divine Trinity! When the Eternal Logos is in your wife’s womb, you can imagine your marriage is going to be exceptional.

And, just so you know, no one ever died from not having sex, so you need not feel sorry for “poor Joseph.”

 

[Janet1983]

And, just so you know, no one ever died from not having sex, so you need not feel sorry for “poor Joseph.”

Well I guess he never heard of this good advice:
Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control…

 

[Good_Fella]

well what a marriage is that?

and why punish poor Jospeh? didnt he deserve a real marriage,you know,with sex??

ps:as a muslim i dont believe Mary was married so to us its more logical that she died as a virgin,but you guys believe she was married and virgin and thats just funny

Mohammad had up to eleven wives at one time after the death of his first wife Khadijah, and a tent full of concubines to boot; so he must have considered a monogamous relationship almost as funny.

PAX

 

[PRmerger]

Well I guess he never heard of this good advice:
Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control…

Now, that’s funny, Janet! Of course St. Joseph never heard of that good advice, since it wasn’t written yet.

Did you see the “except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourself to prayer, and come together again…”

I am certain that Mary and Joseph *have * finally consummated their relationship with each other, through their complete mystical union with God in heaven.

 

[PRmerger]

As religions go, Christianity, with its emphasis on an innocent man being put to death for the transgressions of others, is barbaric and in fact goes against the O/T injunction, that the innocent would not be put to death for the guilty.

I think you have not understood the OT, avflf. The OT is filled with reminders that an innocent man is going to be a ransom for many. An innocent man is going to be put to death for the guilty.

 

[avflf]

I think you have not understood the OT, avflf. The OT is filled with reminders that an innocent man is going to be a ransom for many. An innocent man is going to be put to death for the guilty.

O, I understand the O/T and as I said before it’s made up of various writings by various authors that did not see things the same way. Thus you have conflicting views on morality and justice. One author thought that the sins of the fathers should be visited upon their children up to the 10th generation, another view justice as being that each person suffered for their own sins. One author wrote a whole book on sacrifices for the redemption of sin, another said that blood sacrifices were barbaric and of no use. The list of opposing views is rather long and that’s why the churches need apologists to find excuses for the discrepancies, Kind of apologizing but not apologizing at the same time.

 

[PRmerger]

O, I understand the O/T and as I said before it’s made up of various writings by various authors that did not see things the same way. Thus you have conflicting views on morality and justice. One author thought that the sins of the fathers should be visited upon their children up to the 10th generation, another view justice as being that each person suffered for their own sins. One author wrote a whole book on sacrifices for the redemption of sin, another said that blood sacrifices were barbaric and of no use. The list of opposing views is rather long and that’s why the churches need apologists to find excuses for the discrepancies, Kind of apologizing but not apologizing at the same time.

Ok. But, just to be clear, there are numerous references to an innocent man being the suffering servant and paying ransom for many, right? (It would seem that you forgot about that part when you were responding earlier about the OT injunction.)

 

[1beleevr]

prmerger: I’m so proud of you; a marital relationship, huh? I guess you could say that I too, enjoy a marital relationship with Christ, since He is the Bridegroom, and I am part of the Bride of Christ! Isn’t it amazing; because our Groom will not get cold feet, but return for us.Since knowing the Lord, I have not found anything on this Earth, worth callin g awesome; except God! But, feel free to use the word yourself!

 

[1beleevr]

prieldedi: Peoplecontinue to use Judas as an example of one who walked with the Lord, and was then lost! #1, we really don’t know if he was ever “saved.” Walking with Christ, did not necessarily mean you were saved!#2, Judas was used by both God and the Devil, to fulfill a prophecy from the OT; which declared that Jesus would be betrayed by a close friend, who would receive 30 pieces of silver, and then kill himself! Without Judas, God’s plan would not have moved forward! So, it is wrong to use Judas as an example!

 

[Good_Fella]

prieldedi: Peoplecontinue to use Judas as an example of one who walked with the Lord, and was then lost! #1, we really don’t know if he was ever “saved.” Walking with Christ, did not necessarily mean you were saved!#2, Judas was used by both God and the Devil, to fulfill a prophecy from the OT; which declared that Jesus would be betrayed by a close friend, who would receive 30 pieces of silver, and then kill himself! Without Judas, God’s plan would not have moved forward! So, it is wrong to use Judas as an example!

Judas had a free will. So did Adam and Eve. And so do we, being created in the image of God. God isn’t responsible for our sins. We are! Do you think God had formulated a plan of salvation just to amuse himself? Our eternal destiny isn’t contingent upon God’s foreknowledge - but upon our deeds. This is the Arminian heresy. :tsktsk:

PAX :heaven:

 

[PRmerger]

prmerger: I’m so proud of you; a marital relationship, huh? I guess you could say that I too, enjoy a marital relationship with Christ, since He is the Bridegroom, and I am part of the Bride of Christ!

Perhaps. But without the very special One Flesh Union we enjoy as Catholics in the Eucharist, your “marriage” to Jesus, sadly, is a non-consummated one. :sad_yes:

 

[avflf]

Ok. But, just to be clear, there are numerous references to an innocent man being the suffering servant and paying ransom for many, right? (It would seem that you forgot about that part when you were responding earlier about the OT injunction.)

PRmerger, you do harp on the ludicrous belief that God needs the blood of innocent victims to assuage his aversion of human failings. My God doesn’t, only the Jewish O/T Jehovah is said to have required it. As for the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, this is a follow up of Chapter 52 where the servant is identified with Israel and the Jews still interpret it as being the nation that suffered. Israel was identified in some cases as a person, male or female, thus you have Jehovah referring to the nation as his unfaithful wife, as a suffering servant, as a harlot. No big deal, it was the way the writers of the books expressed their thoughts, poetically. The God Jeremiah has saying the following is more like my God:
Jer 7:22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: and BANG goes Leviticus.
Just as a matter of interest take this verse Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.] and compare it to Jn.18:19 to vs. 37. He openeth up his mouth plenty.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger, you do harp on the ludicrous belief that God needs the blood of innocent victims to assuage his aversion of human failings. My God doesn’t, only the Jewish O/T Jehovah is said to have required it. As for the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, this is a follow up of Chapter 52 where the servant is identified with Israel and the Jews still interpret it as being the nation that suffered. Israel was identified in some cases as a person, male or female, thus you have Jehovah referring to the nation as his unfaithful wife, as a suffering servant, as a harlot. No big deal, it was the way the writers of the books expressed their thoughts, poetically. The God Jeremiah has saying the following is more like my God:
Jer 7:22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: and BANG goes Leviticus.
Just as a matter of interest take this verse Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.] and compare it to Jn.18:19 to vs. 37. He openeth up his mouth plenty.

So, what is it that you believe about the divine, and where do you get your info, avflf?

Do you believe that God is a loving God? If so, how do you know this?

Also, just a friendly warning: you are getting quite close to being disrespectful in your religious dialogue. People have been banned for stepping over the line, and rightly so, in my opinion.

 

[Prieldedi]

prieldedi: Peoplecontinue to use Judas as an example of one who walked with the Lord, and was then lost! #1, we really don’t know if he was ever “saved.” Walking with Christ, did not necessarily mean you were saved!#2, Judas was used by both God and the Devil, to fulfill a prophecy from the OT; which declared that Jesus would be betrayed by a close friend, who would receive 30 pieces of silver, and then kill himself! Without Judas, God’s plan would not have moved forward! So, it is wrong to use Judas as an example!

What you say about Judas, “we really don’t know if he was ever saved”… are you to saying that you believe in “predestination”? That’s the impression I get. If that’s the case, what you are saying is that no matter what you do or believe, if God has predestined you for salvation, you’ll be saved. If not, you’ll be condemned.

No one is saved nor lost “before hand”, Judas had the opportunity to be saved and did not take it. God knew HOW Judas would act, God did not ACT FOR Judas. And when I said “walking with Jesus” I don’t mean it to be in the physical sense. Even people that “walked spiritually” with Jesus have been lost, Judas is one that “walked spiritually” with Jesus too.

By saying that Judas was “used by both God and the Devil”, you are taking away from the individual the responsibilities of their actions. In that sense, we can conclude that no one is bad, no one is good, that we are just “pawns” in a cosmic chess battle between God and the devil. This is not at all the Christian teachings.

Jesus was betrayed BY ALL THE APOSTLES, except John! Where were all the other Apostles when He NEEDED THEM? Hiding like cowards! Knowing through a prophesy that Jesus was going to be betrayed doesn’t take away Judas guilt, it doesn’t take away his sin. What if Peter’s denial and the hiding of the others had been also prophesied? The difference is what each man did after the sin. Peter and the others repented, Judas didn’t.

Perhaps the play “Jesus Christ Superstar” has gotten into many people’s mind who tend to see Judas as a “poor character” in Christian history, and see him as an innocent man whose sole mission was to be “used by God” in order to fulfill a prophesy given to man by God Himself.

No, 1beleevr, that’s not the case. We are responsible for our actions, and our actions will determine the outcome. We can accept of refuse Salvation through Jesus. WE DECIDE, not God. God already knows the outcome for you and for me, that doesn’t take away your decisions nor mine.

Judas continues to be the best example. The second best is St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 9,27, “I punish my body and control it, lest after preaching to others, I myself should be rejected.” Paul “rejected” by God? Not even himself was “saved” before the end of his life, which is what most Protestants wrongly believe, that they are already saved in life.

God bless you

 

[avflf]

So, what is it that you believe about the divine, and where do you get your info, avflf?

Do you believe that God is a loving God? If so, how do you know this?

Also, just a friendly warning: you are getting quite close to being disrespectful in your religious dialogue. People have been banned for stepping over the line, and rightly so, in my opinion.

In which way am I being disrespectful?

 

[PRmerger]

In which way am I being disrespectful?

Not my call. It’s the mod’s call. I’m just saying…

So, what is it that you believe about the divine, and where do you get your info, avflf?

Do you believe that God is a loving God? If so, how do you know this?

 

[avflf]

Not my call. It’s the mod’s call. I’m just saying…

I’m sure you wrote "Also, just a friendly warning: you are getting quite close to being disrespectful in your religious dialogue. People have been banned for stepping over the line, and rightly so, in my opinion." so you must have an idea where I went wrong. I may not view your Deity in the same reverent way you do but seeing that I am in a forum whose members hold that Jehovah is the supreme creator I apologize if I offended anyone by referring to him as the Jewish god, though I firmly believe he is.

So, what is it that you believe about the divine, and where do you get your info, avflf?

I can better tell you what God is not than what he/she/it is.

Do you believe that God is a loving God? If so, how do you know this?

I tend to believe God is neutral, neither hateful nor loving, a force that can be used for good and evil, for healing and wounding perhaps in the line of Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

 

[PRmerger]

I can better tell you what God is not than what he/she/it is.

I tend to believe God is neutral, neither hateful nor loving, a force that can be used for good and evil, for healing and wounding perhaps in the line of Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

So now here’s the big question…

How do you know this about God?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m sure you wrote "Also, just a friendly warning: you are getting quite close to being disrespectful in your religious dialogue. People have been banned for stepping over the line, and rightly so, in my opinion." so you must have an idea where I went wrong. I may not view your Deity in the same reverent way you do but seeing that I am in a forum whose members hold that Jehovah is the supreme creator I apologize if I offended anyone by referring to him as the Jewish god, though I firmly believe he is.

It was just a friendly reminder to you that when you’re discussing religion with people, if you want your arguments to be well-received and considered, being respectful is only going to help you.

Nothing more than that; nothing less.

No need to digest and ruminate on the above warning. Just heed it.

Or not…and people will dismiss your arguments, to your detriment. If you want to be considered a thoughtful, insightful “believer”, present your arguments in a thoughtful, insightful manner, 'kay?