X
Xavier
Guest
An idol is anything you but before (ahead of) God.
Once you have put Mary ahead of God you have made her an idol.
Once you have put Mary ahead of God you have made her an idol.
- Status
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Xavier said:
No one is claiming anything of the sort. Our whole argument is based upon the unique situation of the BVM who bore Jesus who is God.
Anyway I could dispute the claim that there is nothing holy or shameful about having marital relations with your spouse. For example if you treat your spouse in a lustful manner then that is sinful. To do so is to tear down the sacredness of the marriage act. The same is true for those who are fornicators.
The argument that you are using is nothing more than an argument that is based upon a false premise as well as a lack of understanding as to the necessity of this doctrine.
Since Mary had the Son of God, Joseph was not allowed to touch her on grounds that are established under Jewish Law covering that particular situation. However, there are other things to consider, such as the vow of virginity that was made by Mary. Since Joseph did not annul the vow after hearing about it, he was held to the vow and would have to answer for it before God, if Mary was forced to break it.
Just because we, in the 20th and 21st centuries have such a hang up with sex that it seems to preoccupy too much of people’s time - especially the tacky shows that are on tv these days - does not mean that such behaviour was the norm at the time of Mary, Joseph, Jesus, the Apostles, and his kin through his relationship to both Mary and Joseph.
Maggie
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Please note I have corrected your dreadful spelling error.
I am sorry but what you are saying does not make any sense at all. First of all God did dwell in the Temple of Jersualem. He is the Shekinah in the Old Testament, but the Shekinah departed because of the sins of Israel.
Second point: being the Ark of the New Covenant does not equate with being Temples of the Holy Spirit. There is a very physical difference. Let me point it out to you so that there can be no mistake in understanding here. I will do this by asking some pertinent questions:
- Who or what is the New Covenant?
Maggie
M
MaggieOH
Guest
You are making a false accusation and you are off topic. If you want to discuss this point open a thread of your own.
Maggie
B
Benadam
Guest
How will you possibly know that the meaning you give the Scripture will be the same meaning the early Church gave it?
B
Benadam
Guest
I’m sorry but unless you can acknowledge that the Ark of the Old Covenant was a type of what was the real Ark of the Covenant to come, that carried God in the Flesh. The only purpose in making that statement is to avoid recognizing the catholic meaning attached to the Ark of the Covenant.
A
Angainor
Guest
MaggieOH said:
How do you know that? Was it common law at the time that those pledged to be married had a right to be intimate? Were there others who chose to take a more strict view of the engagement period?
What better and more direct choice of words could explain to Mary what is going to happen to her? Use a euphemism for intimacy between a couple and she will get the point. It’s just words, though. An explination.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
The bible is a book that needs to be interpretated. The historical data is quite clear on what the early Church believed.
Here is a link that will help you.
catholic.com/library/fathers_know_best.asp
Peace
S
sfp
Guest
Guess what…
ALL of the church fathers (including those who lived with the last living apostle) disagree with you. But I guess you believe (in your arrogance), that somehow you are more knowledgable then they, right? Martin Luther disagrees with you…did you know that?
The burden of proof is on you. There is no proof that she “had” other children, and the bible has clear instances that refute that…you just can’t comprehend the possibility, so you refuse to look passed the heretical rumors passed down for only the past few hundred years.
Take some time, pal. Think about what you are saying.
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Angainor,
you have a lot to learn about the lifestyle in Jerusalem at that time. That being said, no I cannot say whether others took a more strict view of the period of betrothal. The only one who can answer that question is a Jew.
With your question about the nature of the relationship between Mary and Joseph that existed, I will let Scripture answer you:
“This is how Jesus Christ came to be born. His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they came to live together she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Her husband Joseph, being a man of honour and wanting to spare her publicity, decided to divorce her infomally. He had made up his mind to do this when the angel appeared to him in a dream… When Joseph woke up he did what the angel of the Lord had told him to do; he took his wife to his home and though he had not had intercourse with her, she gave birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.” (Matt 1:18-22)
According to the Gospel of Matthew they were married. Now I will have to find my copy of a commentary on the Gospel of Matthew that will give some historical information. Please bear with me whilst I seek that further information for you.
For the time being please think about the words from Matthew’s Gospel. If they were not married, that is there was what we term a contract or a binding covenant between them, then Joseph would not have been thinking about putting Mary away (or divorcing her). If they had our standard of engagement then there would be no need to “divorce”.
As far as the choice of words are concerned. You are missing the point and falling into the trap of not believing that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is for us the real mystery of faith. We do not know how Mary conceived the Son of God, but the words say it all. The angel used the term overshadow, and therefore Mary was aware that this was to be an impregnation that God would be dwelling within her. The angel did not tell her she would be having normal sexual intercourse.
Maggie
T
Tom
Guest
Please be patient, don’t be “irritated”. We’re all here to share and learn, and where ever two or more are gathered in His name, He is here with us.
RehLlits:
RehLlits:
RehLlits:
RehLlits:
RehLlits:
The Catholic Church teachings are fully “backed” by Scripture, (even though they don’t need to be) there is NO teaching which opposes Scripture.
Only partly true. Yes the early Church taught what is now in Scripture, but, it also taught much more, which never was and never was intended to be in Scripture. “Sola Scriptura” is anti Scriptural, not just un-Scriptural, it goes against Scripture. Scripture specifically states not all is written here. It also tells us to follow the traditions passed on by word of mouth. Church teaching was never written until there was a serious challenge to it. A simple reading of Acts shows how the Apostles are correcting the early Christian communities on many matters. These matters were not previously written in Scripture. The perpetual virginity of Mary was accepted by the early Church, read the writings of the early Church fathers. Even the reformers, Luther, Calvin etc. followed the oral Tradition of the Church on the matter of her perpetual virginity.
Like what? What does Scripture say is against the teachings of the Catholic Church? Certainly not the perpetual virginity of Mary, scroll back thru the Scriptures referred to here in this thread, there is more than enough Scriptural reference to accept her perpetual virginity.
? did you intentionally say that backwards? Does Scripture teach that Mary had other children? No, it does not. If you read all the posts here you’ll find more than enough Scriptural proof that she remained a virgin.
I think, your point is that if it isn’t in Scripture then it’s wrong, which isn’t true. If it goes against Scripture (like Sola Scriptura) then it is a “pollution”.
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Angainor,
I have before me a copy of a translation of the Gospel of Matthew that has been completed by Claude Tresmontant. Claude is a distinguished scholar at the Sorbonne, and he is the writer responsible for the work “The Hebrew Christ” (I do not own that yet). He does not follow the modern scholars regarding the dating of the Gospels and is of the opinion that the books were first written in the Hebrew, and translated into Greek at a later date. What he has done is to translate backwards, from the Greek into the Hebrew and then into the French. At the same time the late Fr. Carmignac, a noted Hebrew scholar was working on similar line. I mention this as a starting point because I will now give you the words as translated by Claude Tremontant. Hopefully they might clear up some of the errors of modern scholarship for you:
“and she was promised in marriage his mother mariam to ioseph and before he went to her she was found to be with child of the holy spirit and ioseph her man was just and he did not want to inflict on her a public punishment covering her with shame and he decided to put her away secretly…”
I thought that you might be interested in this translation because it emphasises the relationship as it existed between Mary and Joseph and also that Mary, being pregnant to another faced being public shamed and being put to death by stoning.
It is worth noting, that the timing of the pregnancy, and the information that it was not possible that Joseph had been her husband in the “real sense” is important to establishing both the humanity and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
I will get back to you later with further information, after I have read some commentaries. I hope that I can help understand the Incarnation and remove that stumbling block so that you will continue your move towards becoming Catholic.
MaggieOH
I have before me a copy of a translation of the Gospel of Matthew that has been completed by Claude Tresmontant. Claude is a distinguished scholar at the Sorbonne, and he is the writer responsible for the work “The Hebrew Christ” (I do not own that yet). He does not follow the modern scholars regarding the dating of the Gospels and is of the opinion that the books were first written in the Hebrew, and translated into Greek at a later date. What he has done is to translate backwards, from the Greek into the Hebrew and then into the French. At the same time the late Fr. Carmignac, a noted Hebrew scholar was working on similar line. I mention this as a starting point because I will now give you the words as translated by Claude Tremontant. Hopefully they might clear up some of the errors of modern scholarship for you:
“and she was promised in marriage his mother mariam to ioseph and before he went to her she was found to be with child of the holy spirit and ioseph her man was just and he did not want to inflict on her a public punishment covering her with shame and he decided to put her away secretly…”
I thought that you might be interested in this translation because it emphasises the relationship as it existed between Mary and Joseph and also that Mary, being pregnant to another faced being public shamed and being put to death by stoning.
It is worth noting, that the timing of the pregnancy, and the information that it was not possible that Joseph had been her husband in the “real sense” is important to establishing both the humanity and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
I will get back to you later with further information, after I have read some commentaries. I hope that I can help understand the Incarnation and remove that stumbling block so that you will continue your move towards becoming Catholic.
MaggieOH
T
Tom
Guest
Very well put.
T
Tom
Guest
It’s history, quite well documented.
Yes it was common and quite practical, keep in mind we’re not talking 21st century U.S.A., we’re talking 2,000 years ago in the middle east! When people became “betrothed” it could be at least a year, sometimes longer before they could come together with their extended families to celebrate the “wedding” (actually there are stories of their children participating), so yes, being “betrothed” was in fact considered “part of being “married”. It isn’t like we have it today!
You’re calling it “strict” in todays moral climate.
M
MaggieOH
Guest
I have a copy of the “Ignatius Catholic Study Bible” on the Gospel of Matthew. The commentary is written by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch. The portion I want to give you relates to your question about betrothal and marriage during the time of the Roman occupation in Jerusalem:
“Betrothal in ancient Judaism was unlike modern-day engagement. It was a temporary period (up to one year) between the covenant of marriage itself and when spouses lived together. Because couples were legally married during this intervening phase, a betrothal could be terminated only by death or divorce (DEUT 24:1-4)” (refer page 18 of the guide)
I hope this helps you to understand a little bit about the period in which Joseph and Mary lived.
God Bless
MaggieOH
“Betrothal in ancient Judaism was unlike modern-day engagement. It was a temporary period (up to one year) between the covenant of marriage itself and when spouses lived together. Because couples were legally married during this intervening phase, a betrothal could be terminated only by death or divorce (DEUT 24:1-4)” (refer page 18 of the guide)
I hope this helps you to understand a little bit about the period in which Joseph and Mary lived.
God Bless
MaggieOH
B
BibleReader
Guest
Hi, Maggie. I’m not sure I understand what you are saying here. It may be that you are speaking in a roundabout way, to be appropriate on the subject of sex in a public site visited by young folks.
You say that you could “dispute” that there is “nothing… shameful” about having sex with your wife???
I look at my wife. I think, “Wow! She’s sexy! Good lookin’ lady! I’m lucky to have her!” And then, sexually aroused, I engage in marital relations with my wife.
That is not shameful. That is cooperating with God’s plan 100%. He said, “Be fruitful and multiply.”
What are you talking about?
God put a lustful eye in me *so that *I would look lustfully at my wife.
That is not bad. That is being good.
If I don’t do that, and inmstead give my wife a cold, dry relationship, I am cheating her, and violating God’s law.
What the heck are you talking about?
J
john_ennis
Guest
Hope I’m not encouraging this to get too far off topic.
BibleReader:
That is not being good. That is bad.
Lust, we mean, is the attitude that makes sex not a gift to us but an appetite meant only to give us pleasure. It enables us to forget the life-giving nature of it, and the manner in which it echoes the love of the Trinity and Christ’s love for his Church. Life-giving love. To make the marital act a giving act doesn’t make it “cold, dry,” but less so. Isn’t that a little more than, “Wow! I’m aroused!”?
peace,
John
By lust I’m sure she means (though I think you don’t) the kind of attitude and act which is entirely focused on your own thirst for pleasure, and your own attainment of it. You can be aroused with your own wife, and still be treating her as an object.
That is not being good. That is bad.
Lust, we mean, is the attitude that makes sex not a gift to us but an appetite meant only to give us pleasure. It enables us to forget the life-giving nature of it, and the manner in which it echoes the love of the Trinity and Christ’s love for his Church. Life-giving love. To make the marital act a giving act doesn’t make it “cold, dry,” but less so. Isn’t that a little more than, “Wow! I’m aroused!”?
peace,
John
A
Angainor
Guest
That is about what my understanding was. They were not living together. How common or accepted were relations during the engagment period? Were there vows taken? When?
Were relations after engagement and before marriage a tolerated practice, that is, not the ideal way to go, but no one made a big deal about it? If that were the case, might the more pious choose to wait?
R
RehLlits
Guest
Tom your posts amuse me and I want to reply.
The Church taught whatever was in Scripture whether it be only oral at the time or if it was already written. And early churches taught what was not in {oral} Scripture. That is why Paul wrote alot of his epistles.
Conclusion:
So, no where in inspired Scripture does it say Joseph could not touch Mary after the birth of Christ. Inspired Scripture does say intercourse is allowed between a husband and wife. Inspired Scripture does say Christ had brethren in which you deny as being children of the other Mary (which I will look into). The evidence is against it, but like several people have said before, “Catholics need this doctrine to be true.”
This sentence made me laugh a little. So church teachings do not have to be backed by Scripture? This was a really ignorant statement. Scripture gave authority to the church; so how does the church have authority over Scripture?
The Church taught whatever was in Scripture whether it be only oral at the time or if it was already written. And early churches taught what was not in {oral} Scripture. That is why Paul wrote alot of his epistles.
It state not all the works of Jesus are written here. And all history is obviously not written word for word in the inspired Text that would make a book that you could not read in your lifetime. But inspired Scripture specifically states that all Scripture is for our good and learning. You misunderstand those kind of verses and you run into some trouble.
Yes inspired written Scripture says to follow the oral traditions that the apostles have ALREADY taught. Meaning nothing new will appear that is truth. Inspired Scripture now is the only source for doctrinal truth.
Really so the Church did not teach the gospel before it was written down? Or did they teach oral Scripture like the creeds before they were written down?
This is an amazing example of ignorance. Church fathers were not inspired writers the apostles were. Whatever inspired Scripture says is what the early church fathers SHOULD have taught. If they didn’t Paul probably wrote and epistle to them.
REALLY!!! wowo like man has authority when it comes to believing a doctrine. God and His Holy Inspired Word holds all authority not some mere man Martin or Calvin or any church father. I do not follow Luther or any other man; I follow the teachings of Christ which He passed down to the apostles. There teachings are inerrant and the teachings of early church fathers are not. We see plenty of examples like the Gal.
Conclusion:
If it is not in Scripture it CAN be false. Scripture is all inerrant but the word of man is not. So if it is not taught it inspired Scripture (1) it can be false and (2) it’s not to important because God did not see it important enough to put it in the inspired Text.
So, no where in inspired Scripture does it say Joseph could not touch Mary after the birth of Christ. Inspired Scripture does say intercourse is allowed between a husband and wife. Inspired Scripture does say Christ had brethren in which you deny as being children of the other Mary (which I will look into). The evidence is against it, but like several people have said before, “Catholics need this doctrine to be true.”
A
Angainor
Guest
I don’t see it that way.
I see a marriage without marital relations… well… odd. I think it much more likely they had a normal marriage.
I think the party advancing a more unlikely scenario has the higher burden of proof.
- Status