Mary- other children

[MaggieOH]

Xavier:

I dont see this as argument of authority, I see it as one of idolitry.
Teh old Testament is a Story of Gods people who followed him and then would stray, God chastises them they repent then go astray again. This is a constant theme, even the great kings of Isreal had idolitress sons, look at David and Solomon etc etc.

Idolitry is anthing (person,place or thing) you place before God or above God. A couple of times Jesus warned us of this Luke11:27-28 and Matt12:47-50.
When Jesus instructs us to pray to God in this way and instead we pray the hail mary it is idolitress. I do not say this lightly my family is caught up in it.

The subject of IDOLATRY is off-topic. If you want to make claims of this nature then please start your own thread and back up what you are saying.

I did not know that it was IDOLATRY to say a prayer that comes directly from Scripture and is a recitation of the mystery of the Incarnation.

 

[deborah1313]

Sherlock:

This is not a new charge and is easily refuted. Go to catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

(If that doesn’t work, go to catholic.com, and on the left click on “Mary and the Saints” from there, go to “Brethren of the Lord”.)

Another thing to remind your friends is that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. If you look at how the Ark of the Old Covenant was regarded, it becomes very apparent that it was “consecrated” to God’s service: no one hauled grain in the old Ark when it was handy, or used it for any other purpose. So with Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant.

I would also point out that if Jesus had brothers, then he would not have given his mother’s care over to John at the foot of the cross.

Now this comment (bolded and enlarged above), this point I understand, and it makes sense. Plus, it’s scriptural. I still don’t see why it’s such a big deal that Mary remained a virgin all her life. Even if she hadn’t remained a virgin, she was a virgin when Jesus was born, so that fulfills the OT prophecies. Is it really so vital?

honestly puzzled :ehh:

 

[MaggieOH]

deborah1313:

Now this comment (bolded and enlarged above), this point I understand, and it makes sense. Plus, it’s scriptural. I still don’t see why it’s such a big deal that Mary remained a virgin all her life. Even if she hadn’t remained a virgin, she was a virgin when Jesus was born, so that fulfills the OT prophecies. Is it really so vital?

honestly puzzled :ehh:

I would love to quote John Calvin on that one since he had a few choice words to say about the Helvidius heresy. The same is true for Martin Luther.

I have been trying to explain that the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity is not about Mary. It is about who is Jesus. If Jesus is who we say he is, then Mary could not have had other children. Even in those days the Jews claimed that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier because they denied that He was the Son of God. If Mary had other children then that would add strength to their claim that Jesus was not who He said He was.

By claiming Mary ever Virgin we are proclaiming that Jesus is the Son of God. We are proclaiming His miraculous conception within the womb of Mary.

How could we be sure that this was not a lie if Mary and Joseph had children?

This is about Jesus, not Mary.

Maggie

 

[deborah1313]

John1717:

Dear friend,

Throughout the gospels, we see multiple references to Jesus’ “brothers”. One even mentions his “sisters.” These texts, taken in their natural reading, imply that Mary was the mother of an ordinary Jewish family. The RCC insists that this natural reading is incorrect. They correctly state that Hebrew does not have separate terms for “brother” and “cousin.” Therefore, the brothers are really cousins, and Mary was a virgin forever. Unfortunately for the Catholic Church, the gospels were all written in Greek and Greek does have separate terms for “brother” (adephos) (which literally means, the sharing of the womb) “sister” (adelphe) and “cousin” (anepsios). In order for the RCC interpretation to hold, it must deny the inspiration of the gospel writers. No other possibility exists. Of course, to deny inspiration would be to deny the canonicity of the gospels, and without them, Mary essentially disappears.

Gee, I thought they were in Aramaic, since that is what Jesus and the apostles spoke. Perhaps, since there was no difference between “cousin” and “brother” in Aramaic, the person who wrote the story down in Greek didn’t know that cousins might be referred to.
So, there is another interpretation. And why are you so adamant about getting rid of Mary?:ehh:

 

[Benadam]

Xavier:

The Scripture I refered to demonstrates that not only God the Holy Spirit dwells in our hearts but that the triune God Father, Son and Spirit dwells within us. It is this God who writes his laws on our hearts and places the law in our minds(Heb8:6-12, Jer31:33-34) Which is the new covenant. The Ark of the New Covenant houses Gods law just sas the Ark of the Old Covenant —we are the Ark of the New Covenant.

Xavier,

I mentioned in my post that all christians ‘participate’ and function as the ark of the covenant as did Noah and all the People of God. But I also mentioned that the Ark of the Covenant has a primary meaning that signifies only one reality that no other person can attach their meaning to.

On top of the Ark were two Cherebum with wings touching. They are a symbol of the expression ‘age to age’

Inside is the covenant which is primarily a vow between persons like a marriage. The law written on our hearts is natural the covenant of God is supernatural. I know you agree that Jesus is the promised one so with that in mind read some snippets of what Mary says about what God has done with her again and compare with the quote above.

And Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord

From now on all generations will call me blessed,

for the Mighty One has done great things for me–
holy is his name. His mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation. 51He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;

remembering to be merciful to Abraham and his descendants forever, even as he said to our fathers.”

I also explained that it is an archetypical symbol of the first covenant because the promised one is the seed that the first Woman will produce in the form that we all share, since her offspring is generated by the will of man. The Primary reality of the Ark is the New Eve the Nrew Woman who did produce the seed not by man’s will but God’s, making her the first cause of the type that we are graced to participate with.

So, you are correct in thinking we all are the Ark of the Covenant but we participate as a collective in a reality that belongs to one person who participated in an exclusive way in the Christ event two thousand years ago and is the primary meaning of the Ark of the Covenant. Mary is the Ark of the Covenant.

 

[Benadam]

deborah1313:

Now this comment (bolded and enlarged above), this point I understand, and it makes sense. Plus, it’s scriptural. I still don’t see why it’s such a big deal that Mary remained a virgin all her life. Even if she hadn’t remained a virgin, she was a virgin when Jesus was born, so that fulfills the OT prophecies. Is it really so vital?

honestly puzzled :ehh:

One purpose is that the reason we have children is because we die. Jesus said those fit for the ressurection are like the angels and are no longer given in marriage because they can no longer die.

The sinlessness of Mary and the abstinence of Joseph as well are a sign of that life in heaven that Jesus was talking about. If they were living a life common to those who die they would not be a sign of the ressurection.

Why would a family be called ‘The’ Holy Family if not for the reason that they were a sign of the fulfillment of Holiness. Remember that Jesus was raised by two humans who were His image of humanity.

Where did He get His experience of love and, love for humanity but His parents. It fits the picture like a glove that Mary and Joseph were living a life who’s purpose was driven by heavenly desires rather than earthly ones…

 

[MaggieOH]

Benadam:

One purpose is that the reason we have children is because we die. Jesus said those fit for the ressurection are like the angels and are no longer given in marriage because they can no longer die.

The sinlessness of Mary and the abstinence of Joseph as well are a sign of that life in heaven that Jesus was talking about. If they were living a life common to those who die they would not be a sign of the ressurection.

Why would a family be called ‘The’ Holy Family if not for the reason that they were a sign of the fulfillment of Holiness. Remember that Jesus was raised by two humans who were His image of humanity.

Where did He get His experience of love and, love for humanity but His parents. It fits the picture like a glove that Mary and Joseph were living a life who’s purpose was driven by heavenly desires rather than earthly ones…

This is an excellent insight. Thanks

MaggieOH

 

[Xavier]

MaggieOH:

Xavier, well done. You have done your homework concerning the Old Testament Ark of the Covenant. You are precisely right that this is the role of the original Ark of the Covenant. This is an outstanding and honest answer. :tiphat:

However, we are not under the Old Covenant. We have been born into the New Covenant.

The Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament is a type or a prefigurement of what is to come. You have correctly identified the Shekinah or the Glory of God as being with the people. So now let’s go a little further. I hope that you will check these references with the same charity that you have given with the preceding answer:

" He took me to the gate, the one facing east. I saw the Glory of the God of Israel approaching from the east." (Ez 43:1)

“The glory of Yahweh arrived at the Temple by the east gate.” (Ezk 43:4)

“He brought me back to the east gate of the sanctuary. It was shut. Yahweh said to me, 'This gate will be kept shut. No one will open it or go through it since Yahweh the God of Israel has been through it. And so it must be kept shut.” (Ez 44:1-2)

“Drink all of you from this, he said, for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, which is to be poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matt 26:27)

“In the same way he took the cup after supper, and said, This cup is the NEW COVENANT in my BLOOD.” (1 Cor 11:25)

Can you tell me who is the New Covenant? Who carried the New Covenant in her womb for the period of gestation?

Maggie

The Old Covenant was a pledge by Jehovah to bless His people, to be their God, to multible them to prosper them if they would obey His commands.
Jesus is not the New Covenant anymore than Jehovah was the Old Covenant.
The New Covenant is a pledge by God to give eternal life to whoever believes on Jesus.

 

[Xavier]

MaggieOH:

Here is another verse to contemplate:

“However, though woman cannot do without man, neither can man do without woman, in the Lord; woman may come from man, but man is born of woman - both come from God” ( 1Cor 11:12)

Maggie

We should not think more highly than we are.

 

[Xavier]

MaggieOH:

This still has no bearing on the relationship between Mary and Joseph. Paul is speaking against those who refrain from each other but carry on affairs with others. Paul speaks of mutual consent in the marital relationship. This does not alter the belief that Mary had a vow and that Joseph, having done nothing to annul the vow is held to that vow. It also does not alter the alternate belief that Joseph also took a vow of chasitity which made him a suitable husband and protector of Mary.

well I hope you will find yourself very soon. What I am saying to you is that your comments showed precisely why the Church has always taught that Mary is Ever-Virgin. This doctrine is not about Mary. It is about Jesus. It is about who He says He is. It is about our whole belief system that Jesus is the Messiah.

If it could be proved that Mary had other children with Joseph then why would anyone want to believe that there is anything special, divine or holy about Jesus? It could be that Mary wanted to hide the truth about the real father of her child.

At the time that Mary was still alive the “Jews” put around the story that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier. Can you see the implications of that claim? They were saying that he was the bastard son of a Roman soldier and that Mary was not telling the truth about His Divine origin. If Mary had other children then those children would be additional fuel for that argument.

Read what the Book of Numbers says about vows and pledges. She is held to the vow. If, on the day of their betrothal Joseph knew about the vow and he did nothing about it, then yes, Mary is a virgin for life.

However, we are still going back to the point where one has to argue that since Mary had within her womb, the Divine Presence, thus making her womb holy, Mary truly did belong wholly to God.
only if you behave yourself

Yes Corinthians speaks of adultery in the Corinthian Church but not in Jerusalem. There is a difference and one must remember “who is the original audience”. In that way you avoid making interpretations of Scripture that are not present in what you are reading.

Maggie

I was going to let this post pass without comment untill i read the last sentence.
Joseph Mary and Jesus were Jews. In their culture it was considered good to have many children. Virginity was not honored in marraige only before it.
To assume Mary made a perpetual vow and then would bethrowed to joseph makes no sense.
A prophet is not without honor except in his own home.
This is true today, in Jesus’ time and before Jesus. No matter what was done people would talk about Him.
I was talking about the immorality in the wordly culture you were talking about the morality in the culture in Nazereth.

 

[Xavier]

MaggieOH:

This still has no bearing on the relationship between Mary and Joseph. Paul is speaking against those who refrain from each other but carry on affairs with others. Paul speaks of mutual consent in the marital relationship. This does not alter the belief that Mary had a vow and that Joseph, having done nothing to annul the vow is held to that vow. It also does not alter the alternate belief that Joseph also took a vow of chasitity which made him a suitable husband and protector of Mary.

well I hope you will find yourself very soon. What I am saying to you is that your comments showed precisely why the Church has always taught that Mary is Ever-Virgin. This doctrine is not about Mary. It is about Jesus. It is about who He says He is. It is about our whole belief system that Jesus is the Messiah.

If it could be proved that Mary had other children with Joseph then why would anyone want to believe that there is anything special, divine or holy about Jesus? It could be that Mary wanted to hide the truth about the real father of her child.

At the time that Mary was still alive the “Jews” put around the story that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier. Can you see the implications of that claim? They were saying that he was the bastard son of a Roman soldier and that Mary was not telling the truth about His Divine origin. If Mary had other children then those children would be additional fuel for that argument.

Read what the Book of Numbers says about vows and pledges. She is held to the vow. If, on the day of their betrothal Joseph knew about the vow and he did nothing about it, then yes, Mary is a virgin for life.

However, we are still going back to the point where one has to argue that since Mary had within her womb, the Divine Presence, thus making her womb holy, Mary truly did belong wholly to God.
only if you behave yourself

Yes Corinthians speaks of adultery in the Corinthian Church but not in Jerusalem. There is a difference and one must remember “who is the original audience”. In that way you avoid making interpretations of Scripture that are not present in what you are reading.

Maggie

 

[Xavier]

Benadam:

Xavier,

I mentioned in my post that all christians ‘participate’ and function as the ark of the covenant as did Noah and all the People of God. But I also mentioned that the Ark of the Covenant has a primary meaning that signifies only one reality that no other person can attach their meaning to.

Inside is the covenant which is primarily a vow between persons like a marriage. The law written on our hearts is natural the covenant of God is supernatural. I know you agree that Jesus is the promised one so with that in mind read some snippets of what Mary says about what God has done with her again and compare with the quote above.

I also explained that it is an archetypical symbol of the first covenant because the promised one is the seed that the first Woman will produce in the form that we all share, since her offspring is generated by the will of man. The Primary reality of the Ark is the New Eve the Nrew Woman who did produce the seed not by man’s will but God’s, making her the first cause of the type that we are graced to participate with.

So, you are correct in thinking we all are the Ark of the Covenant but we participate as a collective in a reality that belongs to one person who participated in an exclusive way in the Christ event two thousand years ago and is the primary meaning of the Ark of the Covenant. Mary is the Ark of the Covenant.

But Jesus is not the Law.
It is the Law that is written on our hearts.
The Ark of the Old Covenant housed the Law the Ark of the new Covenant houses the Law .
Mary was unique and blessed. We too are unique and blessed.

 

[Tom]

oudave:

Hi-
Now I don’t know if Jesus had siblings or not, I would say that because the Bible refurs to his brothers and sisters that he might well have had a brother or sister.This is the main problem that I have with teachings of the catholic church. The Bible nowhere states that
Jesus did not have any siblings, so the only thing left for catholics to do is assume the he didn’t. The fact that the Bible refurs to his brothers or sisters leaves the burden of proof on the catholic church, which it cannot prove. This is the same case in many matters of difference between the catholic church and protestant church. We say look at the Bible and you say look at some book written by some theologian hundreds of years later.
In Him, Dave.

Mary had at least 500 (1 Cor 15, 6) other children. By at least I mean those were her male children, there’s just no telling how many daughters she had. Man she and Joseph must have been busy.
1 Cor 15, 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
The fact that the Bible refurs to his brothers or sisters leaves the burden of proof on the catholic church Notice that the term “ brethren” is the same used in Mt 12:
Mt 12, 46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Also the same word used in Gn 14 to describe the relationship between Abram and Lot. It does not mean they had the same parents, simply that they were kinsmen.

 

[Xavier]

MaggieOH:

The subject of IDOLATRY is off-topic. If you want to make claims of this nature then please start your own thread and back up what you are saying.

I did not know that it was IDOLATRY to say a prayer that comes directly from Scripture and is a recitation of the mystery of the Incarnation.

I was responding to a message directed to me.
geeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh do you have to be such a control freak?
Your husband must be a living saint.

 

[Tom]

Xavier:

I was going to let this post pass without comment untill i read the last sentence.
Joseph Mary and Jesus were Jews. In their culture it was considered good to have many children. Virginity was not honored in marraige only before it.
To assume Mary made a perpetual vow and then would bethrowed to joseph makes no sense.
A prophet is not without honor except in his own home.
This is true today, in Jesus’ time and before Jesus. No matter what was done people would talk about Him.
I was talking about the immorality in the wordly culture you were talking about the morality in the culture in Nazereth.

Lk 1:
28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Now the angel hasn’t yet told her that the child will be conceived by the Holy Spirit. Logically Mary would have thought that since she and Joseph were “betrothed”, after they came together she would conceive and bear a son as the angel had said. As a previous poster said the logical thing for her to say is “So we’re going to have a boy”.
If she were planning on having a normal sexual life with her husband there would have been no question as to how this would occur. The only possible explanation for the following question she asks if she had no intention of having sex with Joseph, if she had been under a vow of celibacy or virginity. And yes this did occur, that’s what the references to Numbers are about. If she were under such a vow she would naturally ask:

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

This question of hers makes no sense if she planned to eventually have sex with Joseph. It only makes sense if she did not plan on having sex with anyone.

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

May the peace and love of our Lord, Jesus the Christ, be with you.

 

[Redbandito]

Look guys. This type of conversation is fruitless. I am not saying that apologetics does not have its place. However, if the people whom you are explaining the faith too are not really interested in hearing it, it is not respective to their human dignity or Christ to continue. These guys are not here to understand the faith. They believe (albeit falsely) that they understand Catholicism and it’s problems. Unfortunately, like many of their apologists, they are not arguing against Catholicism but rather a Catholic strawman. These conversations begin to get repetitive and frustrating. I can see it in many of the responses. Just remember guys, there is no truth outside of love. The second we start stooping to insults, the truth we are proclaiming becomes secondary.

Now to John1717 specifically. I have read the majority of this thread, and I must say that you disappoint me. You have not come over here to discuss Christ in a manner that would be pleasing to him. Sarcasm, false accusations, and completely disregarding the answers given to your questions is in no way pleasing to God. Seriously, I can’t tell you how many posts have answered your “Biblical” objections, and yet without addressing the objections, you proceed with the very verses in question. Don’t you get it? Just throwing out a Bible verse doesn’t get you anywhere, because it is usually THAT VERY BIBLE VERSE IN QUESTION. That is similar to a Catholic bringing up Jam 2:14-26 and you answering with, well Paul said…in Rom 3:28. The point is, you’re just begging the question. What is it that Paul meant? And what is it that James meant? This example is just a general one, and nothing specific to you. However, I have seen you employ this tactic throughout this thread. Exchanging Bible verses means nothing until we have agreed upon what each Bible verse means. This brings up the glaring common sensical problem with the anti-Biblical sola scriptura, but I won’t stray off topic here.

Unfortunately, like many of your Protestant brethren, you see through Protestant colored glasses. Meaning you read scripture through the tradition of your church. Nobody could honestly look at the Biblical evidence for James and Joseph being Jesus “blood brothers” and sincerely believe this to be the case. Not if you have actually read the entire NT. And certainly not after the answers to your objection have been given. What this says to me is that you are more interested in the argument than the truth.

Furthermore, you responded at one point with a completely irrelevant rant on objective truth. I think it is fairly obvious that everyone here believes in objective truth. The question is where do we find it, not whether it exists. Quit trying to shift the fact that you can’t answer the objections being raised by changing the subject. That is not honest, and I expect more out of you as a brother in Christ. You should expect the same from me.

In conclusion, if you are truly interested in glorifying God, your attitude is at least equally important as your content. And while I have been a little disappointed in the content you have brought forth, the real disappointment is with the condescending, arrogant attitude that you have displayed. I will pray for you, and I hope you take this post as it is meant to be taken.

 

[oudave]

deborah1313:

Gee, I thought they were in Aramaic, since that is what Jesus and the apostles spoke. Perhaps, since there was no difference between “cousin” and “brother” in Aramaic, the person who wrote the story down in Greek didn’t know that cousins might be referred to.
So, there is another interpretation. And why are you so adamant about getting rid of Mary?:ehh:

Hi
We are not adament about getting rid of Mary. Mary was an incredible woman and was looked on with favor by God. The problem is that the catholic church places her importance with that of Jesus. You say that she was sinnless because scripture says that she was full of grace, look up grace in any dictionary and it has nothing that refurs to sinless, as a matter of fact I have heard grace explained from a priest as being unmerrited favor, unmerrited meaning not deserving or unearned. You say she remained a virgin all her life, one problem is that it says nowhere in scripture that she died a virgin. Which brings me to my next point, you say she was taken to Heaven like Enoch, one more problem it doesn’t say that in the scriptures either. Praying to Mary and claiming that she is the intersessor for us to Christ is taking away the importance of Christ. I mean do you think that Jesus is just to busy taking care of the worlds problems that he need someone to take prayers for him. Mary is probably mad at you for making her out to be Jesus’s secretary or thinking that her wonderful son who died for the sins of everyone, including hers (we know this because it is in scripture Rom 3:23 - 5:12) was not perfect. You need to trust more in the word of God and not so much in the falable oral traditions of man.
In Him and Him only, Dave. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon11.gif

 

[Redbandito]

Xavier:

But Jesus is not the Law.
It is the Law that is written on our hearts.
The Ark of the Old Covenant housed the Law the Ark of the new Covenant houses the Law .
Mary was unique and blessed. We too are unique and blessed.

Xavier, I have really appreciated your attempts to have a good Biblical discussion. I know it is not easy coming to a “Catholic” forum and discussing these questions. Hopefully you feel as though you have been treated with the respect you deserve as a creation of Our Lord. As for your objections, I have noticed that you seem to mix up some terminology. The Ark of the Covenant contained the WORD of God. The law has always been written in our hearts. That has always been the case though. Rom 2:14-15 talks about the Gentiles having the law on their hearts outside divine revelation. This is not simply a new thing. The natural has always been in the heart of man. This really doesn’t address the issue though. The physical presence of the word of God was present in the Ark of the Covenant. God took great care to protect this Ark from any corruption. It was built of Acacia wood which was seen back then as incorruptible. In the same way, Mary’s womb housed the Word of God made flesh. It is no great stretch to see that there is a difference between Mary’s relationship to Christ and our’s.

Furthermore, we do house the Holy Spirit. But, you dimish the importance of the Trinity when you do not differentiate the persons of it.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

oudave:

Hi-
Now I don’t know if Jesus had siblings or not, I would say that because the Bible refurs to his brothers and sisters that he might well have had a brother or sister.This is the main problem that I have with teachings of the catholic church. The Bible nowhere states that
Jesus did not have any siblings, so the only thing left for catholics to do is assume the he didn’t. The fact that the Bible refurs to his brothers or sisters leaves the burden of proof on the catholic church, which it cannot prove. This is the same case in many matters of difference between the catholic church and protestant church. We say look at the Bible and you say look at some book written by some theologian hundreds of years later.
In Him, Dave.

With all due respect Oudave their are also historical accounts that were taken down at the time of Christ that did not make it into the canon of scripture.St.Joseph being a widower in all likely hood had children.That would in no way effect Mary’s virginity.Also, Jesus calls all of us His brothers and sisters is he saying we were all born 2000 years ago?He says this to the crowds He spoke to were all them also biologically born of Mary.The Church was given the Authority to preach and teach as well as to bind and loose,so there is no contradiction to scripture, unless you want to dismiss certain parts of scripture in order to prove your own belief.God Bless
PS. Did You get my PM? If so PM me back

 

[john_doran]

oudave:

The problem is that the catholic church places her importance with that of Jesus.

no, it doesn’t. if by “with” you mean “equal to”.

You say that she was sinnless because scripture says that she was full of grace, look up grace in any dictionary and it has nothing that refurs to sinless, as a matter of fact I have heard grace explained from a priest as being unmerrited favor, unmerrited meaning not deserving or unearned.

what makes a (contemporary) dictionary more reliable than expositions on the theology of grace by catholic theologians? i mean, seeing as you’re apparently going to rely on a non-scriptural source in the first place…

You say she remained a virgin all her life, one problem is that it says nowhere in scripture that she died a virgin. Which brings me to my next point, you say she was taken to Heaven like Enoch, one more problem it doesn’t say that in the scriptures either.

the scriptures also don’t say “only scriptures are infallible”, let alone anything like “and ‘scripture’ means the following texts”.

Praying to Mary and claiming that she is the intersessor for us to Christ is taking away the importance of Christ.

no, it’s not. at least not to us.

I mean do you think that Jesus is just to busy taking care of the worlds problems that he need someone to take prayers for him. Mary is probably mad at you for making her out to be Jesus’s secretary or thinking that her wonderful son who died for the sins of everyone, including hers (we know this because it is in scripture Rom 3:23 - 5:12) was not perfect.

she’s probably about as mad about it as, say, you are when your friends ask you to pray to jesus for them.

You need to trust more in the word of God and not so much in the falable oral traditions of man.

ah, but what greater trust in God is there than to believe that he will inerrantly convey his will through two thousand years of administration and transmission of what is otherwise fallible oral tradition?

i mean, can you explain to me why the belief by catholics that the core of apostolic oral tradition has come down to us without variation and without error, is any different than your belief that the text of the bible has come down to us though thousands of years of copying, translation, retranslation, and recopying, without either redaction or simple errors of transmission?