E
emeraldcoast
Guest
Catholics leave out the scenario that Mary and Joseph were devout Jews and knew the importance of sexual intimacy in marriage. They had children.
God Bless!
- Status
God Bless!
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
Notice that scripture calles these Jesus’ bretheren or brothers,not Mary’s sons or daughters. I beleive that Jesus was Mary’s only child. These others were Joseph’s children and were probably older than Jesus.
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
So you are saying that dogmas are beleived in the Catholic church before most people know what they are. Now that’s what I call faith. It’s just misplaced.
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
At least we all seem to agree that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of Christ, therefore the Mother of God.
Has anyone ever paused to consider what type of challenging theological obstacles that would present if Mary and Joseph had children together ?.. It could’ve presented some very daunting scenarios for these “purported siblings” as well …You know…? kind of like, “My mother is the Mother of God, therefore I am God”, and the like.
As mentioned earlier, there were no siblings mentioned when Jesus was 12 - lost then found 3 days later in the temple. Neither were there any siblings mentioned at the foot of the Cross to take Mary ,“into their care” - a responsibility which, by tradition “devout Jews” would’ve been bound to fulfill.
I know a Chaplain who is from Congo and in present -day reference to a distant cousin, he calls him “frère” - the french equivalent for “brother”. When I asked him to elaborate, he replied it is the custom of his people to refer to even distant cousins as “brother” or “sister”. No one is trying to cover up or explain away an anomaly here. It’s more common than we think.
A better idea is not to attribute any sin at all to Mary. Medical science can actually be a help here. A Christian who has a general knowledge of the mother, the placenta, the umbilical cord and their biological functions is usually a little more prudent in this area.
Basically, without getting into all the intricacies and evolving balances in the formation of the human foetus through the mother,the placenta and ubmilical cord, the cord usually consists of two arteries and one vein unless there is a defect - three blood vessels: It becomes a lot more intricate than this , but "…The vein carries oxygen-rich blood and nutrients from the placenta to the baby, while the two arteries transport waste from the baby back to the placenta (where waste is transferred to the mother’s blood and disposed of by her kidneys…"
So the Precious Blood of Christ shed on the Cross, which saves us, the Blood of the Lamb innocent and without blemish, that Blood which,"…speaks more eloquently than the blood of Abel",one drop of which would have been enough to redeem the entire world, drew it’s biological identity out of the blood of Mary.
If we think it through a couple of more steps, to say Mary was sinful, is to say that the Blood of Christ was mingled with sinful blood and took its nutrients from sinful blood thus Christ’s Blood is tainted with and formed from sinful blood. We are saying God is tainted with sin. That shouldn’t sit right in the mind of any Christian.
We are all united by Baptism…aren’t we?
Has anyone ever paused to consider what type of challenging theological obstacles that would present if Mary and Joseph had children together ?.. It could’ve presented some very daunting scenarios for these “purported siblings” as well …You know…? kind of like, “My mother is the Mother of God, therefore I am God”, and the like.
As mentioned earlier, there were no siblings mentioned when Jesus was 12 - lost then found 3 days later in the temple. Neither were there any siblings mentioned at the foot of the Cross to take Mary ,“into their care” - a responsibility which, by tradition “devout Jews” would’ve been bound to fulfill.
I know a Chaplain who is from Congo and in present -day reference to a distant cousin, he calls him “frère” - the french equivalent for “brother”. When I asked him to elaborate, he replied it is the custom of his people to refer to even distant cousins as “brother” or “sister”. No one is trying to cover up or explain away an anomaly here. It’s more common than we think.
The author contradicts himself here. How can someone be at the same time righteous, graced, (full of grace) and sinful ? The American Heritage dictionary describes sinful as an adjective meaning “Marked by or full of sin; wicked.” So which was it?..Full of grace or full of sin and wickedness…? Hold on a second, maybe it was 50/50 huh…?
A better idea is not to attribute any sin at all to Mary. Medical science can actually be a help here. A Christian who has a general knowledge of the mother, the placenta, the umbilical cord and their biological functions is usually a little more prudent in this area.
Basically, without getting into all the intricacies and evolving balances in the formation of the human foetus through the mother,the placenta and ubmilical cord, the cord usually consists of two arteries and one vein unless there is a defect - three blood vessels: It becomes a lot more intricate than this , but "…The vein carries oxygen-rich blood and nutrients from the placenta to the baby, while the two arteries transport waste from the baby back to the placenta (where waste is transferred to the mother’s blood and disposed of by her kidneys…"
So the Precious Blood of Christ shed on the Cross, which saves us, the Blood of the Lamb innocent and without blemish, that Blood which,"…speaks more eloquently than the blood of Abel",one drop of which would have been enough to redeem the entire world, drew it’s biological identity out of the blood of Mary.
If we think it through a couple of more steps, to say Mary was sinful, is to say that the Blood of Christ was mingled with sinful blood and took its nutrients from sinful blood thus Christ’s Blood is tainted with and formed from sinful blood. We are saying God is tainted with sin. That shouldn’t sit right in the mind of any Christian.
We are all united by Baptism…aren’t we?
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
This same faith (although not as measurably “displaced”) was also shared by Luther and Calvin … (…
…maybe we are all Christians. )mariology.com/sections/reformers.html
Let’s all get ready to rejoice tomorrow.
C
Ceil-1
Guest
I am always amazed at how relatively poorly educated Protestants feel they have come up with revelations that contradict wisdom that has existed for thousands of years across continents among men who have spoken multiple languages and studied their entire lives. Wisdom shared by literally billions of people: smart, dumb, powerful, weak, rich and poor alike. Yet, they know it all and can’t be bothered to study these things thoroughly.
I questioned these things as well, but had the wherewithal to give the benefit of the doubt to the holy people who came before me., then studied it as a lay person with the intention to understand. Perhaps that is the difference. I was not already convinced of myself before beginning. What is more, sincere prayer and interior contemplation goes a long way towards understanding of these supernatural things.
Then again, what do I know?
I questioned these things as well, but had the wherewithal to give the benefit of the doubt to the holy people who came before me., then studied it as a lay person with the intention to understand. Perhaps that is the difference. I was not already convinced of myself before beginning. What is more, sincere prayer and interior contemplation goes a long way towards understanding of these supernatural things.
Then again, what do I know?
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
Even if we did understand it all, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 , it’s better for us to have love:
1 Corinthians 13: 1-3
1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
My wishes for a very happy, holy and joy-filled Easter to all our fellow members.
1 Corinthians 13: 1-3
1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
My wishes for a very happy, holy and joy-filled Easter to all our fellow members.
R
Richard_Kastner
Guest
Rom5:12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
In order to be justified by God one must accept the gift of grace through faith unto salvation. If, as you say, Mary was without sin there was no need for her to be justified and no need for the grace of God. And it is contrary to what the bible says in Rom 5:12
Rom8:3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Here is Romans8:3 It says that Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh. Let me ask you whose flesh did He come in the likeness of. It wasn’t God because He is a spirit and is without sin. The only one it could be is Mary
J
JJ59
Guest
Hi, Rosanna.
Oh, that wacky gotquestions. I sent them an email a couple of months ago with a thorough rebuttal of some of their claims about Mary. (They said they weren’t a Christian debate site, which is cool. They were real nice about it.)
Judging by what you said, Matthew 1:25 is what’s the most bothersome to you. No worries. The verse says:
“And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.”
Now, if I said something like, “The nun was a virgin till (until) her death”, would you assume she did not remain a virgin after her death? Or when Christ says, “I’ll be with you until the end of the world”, does that mean he’ll ditch us as soon as the world ends?
Remember, every time someone says a Catholic doctrine is wrong, keep a skeptical eye. Before you get down on your knees, consider this: “Who am I going to trust? A Church that’s keep its act together since the time of Christ, or some 500-year-old schismatic Church?” There’s some good Catholic apologetic websites out there, especially www.catholic.com. Their “faith tracts” are just great.
God Bless You.
K
kra130
Guest
i love the contrast catholic use when it comes to until. mary wasn’t incapable of having sex after she gave birth so these scenarios are completely useless. how about “the murder did not kill until he got out of prison.” “John did not die until after he wrote Revelations” “Jesus will not return until man obtains flight.” those aren’t good examples and its ridiculous to use them. especially when there is no chance of the person to preform the act afterwards.
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
Hi Richard.
Thanks for providing the quotes. We agree on what is written in Rom 5:12. God indeed did save Mary from sin. It is why in Luke 1:47 she says, “…My spirit rejoices in God my Saviour.” What is proposed for Catholics as worthy of belief is that, as a singular privilege, God saved/preserved Mary - His Mother from the stain of all sin at and from the moment of her conception. Luther believed this same thing … from the link provided in post # 25:
The Immaculate Conception
Yet again the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary’s divine maternity, perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception. Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning:
B]"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin…"3
Perhaps, if you would permit me to borrow from the funny you made in post # 23 ( made me LOL
) ,we agree on the principle, so our differences also seem to be rooted in a case of “misplacement”.It was never my intention to enter into debate on differences with other Christians, especially in a forum on non-catholic religions, but the OP - a catholic had asked for some clarification. This is what I was attempting to address and I apologize if I’ve strayed from that objective. Additionally, you’d probably discover that I couldn’t keep up with you for too long if we we’re to continue debating solely sola scriptura.
I don’t have a problem with Romans 8:3 . Your interpretation of it isn’t totally clear to me. I’d like to provide you with a reply, but the reply would be more pertinent if I knew how or what you perceive *sinful flesh *to imply.
I’ll be working today well into the evening (all for the Lord mind you) and so wouldn’t be able to get back in front of the pc until late this evening, but if you could leave me a little more background on your particular perception, I could try and give you my particular take on that passage from Romans 8:3.
Happy Easter to you and those dear to you.
**He is risen as He said…Alleluia **!!
G
guanophore
Guest
No. Mary was free to sin. God created Eve without sin,and she was free to sin, and did so. God has cleansed us all from sin in baptism, and we are still free to sin.
G
guanophore
Guest
Catholics do no such thing. Of course Mary and Joseph were devout Jews, and knew the importance of sexual initmacy in marriage! The also knew and accepted the teaching on consecrated virgins.
Catholics know that Mary had no other children because we have received the faith of the Apostles. Don’t you think the Apostles would know if she had them? Why do you suppose they taught otherwise?
G
guanophore
Guest
While I dispute your premise (grace must be accepted for justification) I do agree that Mary did need a saviour. That is why she testifies that God is hers. Saving her from sinning before she sinned is still salvation. May God so save us from all our sins!
G
guanophore
Guest
Were you able to see that it does not mean what many are trying to say it means (that she had sex and babies after Jesus?)
You are right, she was capable. that is not the issue. the issue is that “until” does not necessarily mean that she chose to exercise her capabilities.
The Apostles taught that Jesus was an only child. Don’t you think they would know?
I agree. However, it does make it clear that the use of the word “until” does not necessarily imply that the action must, or does occur afterward.
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
Paragraph # 7 (down to article 421) from this link scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm
provides a terse yet fairly complete description of how catholics view original sin, and personal sin. The description of original sin would seem to fit very well for what scripture calls “sinful flesh” except in the case of Jesus (and His Mother) , Who, being God,could not be connected to or implicated by or in sin…
However as evidenced in the page at the provided link, original sin is something contracted- not committed. It is a state and not an act. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice… which Adam and Eve had before the fall.
Feel free to provide your interpretation of sinful flesh, if you so wish Richard.
God blessyou.
(Alleluia
)
S
SenorSalsa
Guest
Also, Jesus gave His mother to John at the cross, according to the Gospel, which would have been a wrong if Jesus had had living brothers, now considering that all 4 supposed “brothers” of Jesus would have to be younger, and Jesus was about 33 when he died, it seems unlikely that all 4 of his younger brothers would have died before him
S
Scriptorian
Guest
Since when is having children within marriage unchaste and unholy!!! That offends me a little. It really does.
Also, the apostles taught nothing of the sort. The perpetual virginity of Mary was not even official dogma in the church until 1854. It wasn’t even taught as doctrine until 1476.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
They way this is written is like saying that all school buses are yellow! (except of course when they are white) That all cabs are yellow! (except of course when they are red)
Take these two line for instance:
Mary recognized that she needed the Savior. The Bible never says that Mary was anyone but an ordinary human whom God chose to use in an extraordinary way.
That would be correct, Mary was an ordinary Jewish girl used and prepared by God in an extraordinary way. But not the way they imply.
Mary did not have an “immaculate conception.” The Bible doesn’t suggest Mary’s birth was anything but a normal human birth.
Mary was born in the normal way and was conceived in the normal human way, but her soul was created by God in an extraordinary manner by a single act of God, preserving it from Original Sin in preparation for her role as the Mother of God.
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
@ Richard Kastner:
My own personal interpretation of this passage centers on the word “likeness” : Just as man and woman are created in God’s image and “likeness” , we, nonetheless, are not God.
Similarly, although Jesus came in the “likeness” of sinful flesh, neither He, nor His flesh, nor anything about Him were actually sinful - they couldn’t be, because He is God.
- Status