Prove it!

[guanophore]

In the context of the post I was commenting on, it’s quite relevant. The context of my comment was the false idea the Church must be infallible because God is powerful. My comment showed that God didn’t use His power to keep Israel infallible so why would He keep the CC infallible? God uses our infallibility to show His mercy and grace and salvation.

Ok, I see the point you are trying to make. The difference is the nature of the Church. The Church has elements that the Chosen People did not. In the New Covenant, God puts His spirit in us in a new way. What makes the Church infallible are the divine elements. Jesus is her Head, and the HS is her Soul. It is these divine elements that prevent her from error.

He chose to manifest Himself to the world through the Church. I can’t really tell you “why would He”. This is how He chose to set it up. He said “I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail”. The promise is not dependent upon the frailty of men, but upon the omnipotence of God.

I agree, with your last sentence, except that I would say God uses the weak and frail in this world to shame the wise.

 

[Deconi]

I understand. Thanks be to God for His mighty healing power!
**
I used to BE Leslie. I was an ignorant cradle Catholic who was attending the Assemblies of God, steeped in my fundamentalism and anti-Catholicism. ** The Truth of God proclaimed through His One Body, the Church does miracles.

The funny thing is, in the time you all left and returned, NOTHING new has been declared for the Catholic faith!

Yet you all returned with such different ‘eyes’ that you begin to see the rich tapestry of Catholicism that was always there, before you left! The same with ‘Leslie’ and co. There really is no problem, per se. It is simply that she is ‘following’ the same beaten track left by those before you and yourselves.

Dokimas is in search of truth. It is unfortunate that his preconceived understanding remains a hurdle for him. The belief that the Catholic Church commenced 300AD, presumably from Constantine’s rule, is one that remains a main hurdle! How one can discuss the various passages of Scriptures in exegesis mode without even understanding the differences between what is Scriptures, WHY and HOW they become Scriptures are issues a multitude of searchers, dissenters, protestants and anti-Catholics bring to the fore, backed by argumentative dispositions that often frustrates discussion.

As an aside, Guano, you’ve obviously immersed yourself in the depths of that ‘tapestry’ I mentioned, for your exegete and knowledge has amassed since I ‘first’ saw you here! Unfortunately, my observations don’t amount to a hellovamounto’beans!

All I can say is …AWESOME work.

 

[Dokimas]

​

And I’ll be in search of some ot that truth until I’m in Heaven when I’ll know as I’m known. Until them I’m content with knowing the Truth, Jesus the Christ, the Son of the Living God, God Incarnate, the Messiah, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the earth.​

If you think you don’t have preconceived understandings you are self deceived. We all have. That’s not the important thing. The important things are whether or not any of it is based on the Truth and if it is not, will be we willing to change our minds when the Truth is presented by the light of the Holy Spirit?​

 

[Jars_of_Clay_1]

It is not an assumption or an opinion.

If Mary was planning to have marital relations with Jesus–and remember, she was betrothed–then her question in Luke 1:34 makes absolutely no sense.

Again, if I were engaged to be married and an angel appeared to me and said, “You’re going to conceive a child”, I’d say, “Yay!” not, “How’s that going to happen?”

The question indicates she is never going to engage in marital relations.

Otherwise, why would she ask? She’s engaged! Even as a 14 yr old girl (or young teen) she would have known how babies were created and realized, “Yup, I’m going to have marital relations, so I’m going to have a baby at some point!”

Did you mis write something here - “If Mary was planning to have marital relations with Jesus?” or am I misreadidng your sentence? My goodness, let me clarify - my question was - Did Joseph and Mary have sexual relations after Jesus’ birth - during the remainder of their marriage to each other (Joseph and Mary)? They remained married after Jesus’ birth, no?

I was asking someone if there was something in the bible that said they were celibate during the remainder of their marriage (not at conception of Jesus or during his gestation in her womb). I think that as two married people raising a son together (Jesus) they engaged in sexual activity as any other normal couple at that time (or this time).

That was my question. I received a response that I don’t agree with but of course am thankful for that comment. Let me just re-clarify - I’m not questioning immaculate conception - I’m questioning sexual relations between a married couple.

Thanks again.

 

[guanophore]

The funny thing is, in the time you all left and returned, NOTHING new has been declared for the Catholic faith!

Yet you all returned with such different ‘eyes’ that you begin to see the rich tapestry of Catholicism that was always there, before you left! The same with ‘Leslie’ and co. There really is no problem, per se. It is simply that she is ‘following’ the same beaten track left by those before you and yourselves.

Dokimas is in search of truth. It is unfortunate that his preconceived understanding remains a hurdle for him. The belief that the Catholic Church commenced 300AD, presumably from Constantine’s rule, is one that remains a main hurdle! How one can discuss the various passages of Scriptures in exegesis mode without even understanding the differences between what is Scriptures, WHY and HOW they become Scriptures are issues a multitude of searchers, dissenters, protestants and anti-Catholics bring to the fore, backed by argumentative dispositions that often frustrates discussion.

As an aside, Guano, you’ve obviously immersed yourself in the depths of that ‘tapestry’ I mentioned, for your exegete and knowledge has amassed since I ‘first’ saw you here! Unfortunately, my observations don’t amount to a hellovamounto’beans!

All I can say is …AWESOME work.

This is so true, about the “change” being in myself, and not the Church. I did return with different eyes.

It is also true that I learn something new here every day!

 

[guanophore]

Did you mis write something here - “If Mary was planning to have marital relations with Jesus?” or am I misreadidng your sentence? My goodness, let me clarify - my question was - Did Joseph and Mary have sexual relations after Jesus’ birth - during the remainder of their marriage to each other (Joseph and Mary)? They remained married after Jesus’ birth, no?

I was asking someone if there was something in the bible that said they were celibate during the remainder of their marriage (not at conception of Jesus or during his gestation in her womb). I think that as two married people raising a son together (Jesus) they engaged in sexual activity as any other normal couple at that time (or this time).

That was my question. I received a response that I don’t agree with but of course am thankful for that comment. Let me just re-clarify - I’m not questioning immaculate conception - I’m questioning sexual relations between a married couple.

Thanks again.

Mary made a vow of perpetual virginity prior to the betrothal. Joseph accepted this. This is why he was so shocked to learn she was pregnant, and this is why she asked the angel “how can this be”?

A young lady planning to have normal marital relations would not need to ask such a question.

 

[PRmerger]

Did you mis write something here - “If Mary was planning to have marital relations with Jesus?” or am I misreadidng your sentence?

Yes; my bad.

Originally Posted by PRmerger

If Mary was planning to have marital relations with -]Jesus–/-] JOSEPH–and remember, she was betrothed–then her question in Luke 1:34 makes absolutely no sense.

They remained married after Jesus’ birth, no?

Indeed. But, if Mary had intended to engage in marital relations then she would never have asked that question of the angel. Her response would have been, “Awesome!!”

I was asking someone if there was something in the bible that said they were celibate during the remainder of their marriage (not at conception of Jesus or during his gestation in her womb).

Yes, [BIBLEDRB]Luke 1:34[/BIBLEDRB]. “How can this be since I know not man?”

A married woman who intends to engage in marital relations does not ask this question.

Let me just re-clarify - I’m not questioning immaculate conception - I’m questioning sexual relations between a married couple.

Thanks again.

Just so we’re on the same page: the Immaculate Conception is not Mary conceiving Jesus through the Holy Spirit. (That would indicate that we think sex is NOT immaculate, or that sex is dirty. The CC would never say that!).

The Immaculate Conception is about Mary being protected and SAVED from original sin, from the very first moment of her conception.

 

[Dokimas]

Mary made a vow of perpetual virginity prior to the betrothal. Joseph accepted this. This is why he was so shocked to learn she was pregnant, and this is why she asked the angel “how can this be”?

A young lady planning to have normal marital relations would not need to ask such a question.

Unless Mary understood that the angel meant she would conceive before the consumation of the marriage. Truly this makes most sense.

 

[PRmerger]

Unless Mary understood that the angel meant before the consumation of the marriage. Truly this makes most sense.

That would be eisigesis, Dokimas, as there’s nothing in Scripture to indicate she had this understanding whatsoever.

Remember, she was married already, just not living under the same roof with Jesus.

 

[Dokimas]

That would be eisigesis, Dokimas, as there’s nothing in Scripture to indicate she had this understanding whatsoever.

Remember, she was married already, just not living under the same roof with Jesus.

You still don’t seem to understand Jewish marriage procedure of Mary’s time. I gave a link I think. Let me give it if I am mistaken.

yeshuatyisrael.com/messiah_wedding%201.htm​

Note #10 (consumation of marriage) takes place up to 2 yrs before the man and woman enters their contract.​

There’s nothing in context that would describe their relationship as celebate. Quite the oposite, so my suggestion in the last post makes sense.

 

[Jars_of_Clay_1]

Mary made a vow of perpetual virginity prior to the betrothal. Joseph accepted this. This is why he was so shocked to learn she was pregnant, and this is why she asked the angel “how can this be”?

A young lady planning to have normal marital relations would not need to ask such a question.

Is that what the other person was trying to say to me in referencing in Luke 1:34 which says, “How can this be since I am a virgin?” I wouldn’t take that as saying I am a virgin to mean that “I am a virgin for all of eternity.” I would think that means my husband and I or my betrothed have not yet had relations, so how is it possible that I will (or have) conceived?

Or are you referencing another bible passage that states what you are saying?

Thanks for contributing your opinion, it’s thought provoking and I very much appreciate it.

 

[guanophore]

Unless Mary understood that the angel meant before the consumation of the marriage. Truly this makes most sense.

Imagine you are Mary, or anyone about to be married. You have heard about Messiah since you were a small child. You assume, along with the rest of Israel, that the Messiah will be a human, born after the manner of all humans. When the angel comes to announce, would you not just assume, if you were planning to have normal relations, that you were chosen to bear the Messiah after the normal manner of married couples?

Mary did not need to be taught the facts of life, as this is a normal preparation for marriagable age virgins in Israel. The older female relatives instructed them on the duties of being a Godly wife and mother. It is not as though she did not know where babies come from!

 

[Dokimas]

Is that what the other person was trying to say to me in referencing in Luke 1:34 which says, “How can this be since I am a virgin?” I wouldn’t take that as saying I am a virgin to mean that “I am a virgin for all of eternity.” I would think that means my husband and I or my betrothed have not yet had relations, so how is it possible that I will (or have) conceived?

Or are you referencing another bible passage that states what you are saying?

Thanks for contributing your opinion, it’s thought provoking and I very much appreciate it.

Matthew 1:

24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife,
25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.​

Please notice two things: first, the word ‘til’ and second, the word firstborn.

 

[PRmerger]

I would think that means my husband and I or my betrothed have not yet had relations, so how is it possible that I will (or have) conceived?.

I don’t think it makes sense–at all-- that she would say “how is it possible that I WILL conceive”.

It does make sense that she would question, “How is it that I HAVE conceived.”.

However, the Scriptures very clearly state that Mary WILL conceive a child, not that she already has.

 

[Dokimas]

Imagine you are Mary, or anyone about to be married. You have heard about Messiah since you were a small child. You assume, along with the rest of Israel, that the Messiah will be a human, born after the manner of all humans. When the angel comes to announce, would you not just assume, if you were planning to have normal relations, that you were chosen to bear the Messiah after the normal manner of married couples?

Mary did not need to be taught the facts of life, as this is a normal preparation for marriagable age virgins in Israel. The older female relatives instructed them on the duties of being a Godly wife and mother. It is not as though she did not know where babies come from!

Imagine you are Matthew or Luke (especially Luke because he was very particular about getting things accurate), wouldn’t you think it was EXTREMELY important to identify Mary as never having children and remained a virgin seeing that the CC thinks it’s so very important to their understanding of how the Savior should have entered humanity?

 

[PRmerger]

Matthew 1:

24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife,
25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.​

Please notice two things: first, the word ‘til’ and second, the word firstborn.

This has already been discussed.

Do you think Michal, in 2 Samuel 6:23 , gave birth after she died? For it says that “Michal had no children until the day she died.”

By your paradigm, it means that she did!

From my earlier post on this subject:
Does it say in Scripture that Joseph had sexual relations with Mary after the baby was born? I certainly could not find it anywhere in my Scriptural readings! Just that they had no relations UNTIL Jesus’ birth.

[SIGN]The word “until” does not indicate anything that occurred subsequently. [/SIGN]

Here’s some examples of other verses which use the word “until” but don’t indicate what occurred afterwards…

In 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child “until” the day of her death. (We can presume that she didn’t have children afterwards, either. )

Hebrews 1:13
13 But to which of the angels said he at any time: Sit on my right hand, [SIGN]until I make thy enemies thy footstool?[/SIGN]

Afterwards, will he no longer sit at the right hand?

and
1 Timothy 4:13
13 [SIGN]Till I come[/SIGN], attend unto reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine.

After he comes, are they forbidden from reading the Scriptures?

 

[guanophore]

Or are you referencing another bible passage that states what you are saying?

The relevant passage is about how a woman taking a vow of celibacy will have that vow ratified by either her father, or her husband.

Num 30:3 "If a woman vows a vow to the LORD and binds herself by a pledge, while within her father’s house in her youth,
Num 30:4 and her father hears of her vow and of her pledge by which she has bound herself and says nothing to her, then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she has bound herself shall stand.
Num 30:5 But if her father opposes her on the day that he hears of it, no vow of hers, no pledge by which she has bound herself shall stand. And the LORD will forgive her, because her father opposed her.
Num 30:6 “If she marries a husband, while under her vows or any thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she has bound herself,
Num 30:7 and her husband hears of it and says nothing to her on the day that he hears, then her vows shall stand, and her pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand.
Num 30:8 But if, on the day that her husband comes to hear of it, he opposes her, then he makes void her vow that was on her, and the thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she bound herself. And the LORD will forgive her.
Num 30:9 (But any vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, anything by which she has bound herself, shall stand against her.)
Num 30:10 And if she vowed in her husband’s house or bound herself by a pledge with an oath,
Num 30:11 and her husband heard of it and said nothing to her and did not oppose her, then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she bound herself shall stand.
Num 30:12 But if her husband makes them null and void on the day that he hears them, then whatever proceeds out of her lips concerning her vows or concerning her pledge of herself shall not stand. Her husband has made them void, and the LORD will forgive her.
Num 30:13 Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void.
Num 30:14 But if her husband says nothing to her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows or all her pledges that are upon her. He has established them, because he said nothing to her on the day that he heard of them.
Num 30:15 But if he makes them null and void after he has heard of them, then he shall bear her iniquity.”
Num 30:16 These are the statutes that the LORD commanded Moses about a man and his wife and about a father and his daughter while she is in her youth within her father’s house.

Mary took a vow of celibacy before she was given to Joseph. Girls who were dedicated to God were permitted to remain at the Temple until puberty, but at that time, they were placed in the custody of an upright man in the community to be their guardian. Often such temple virgins were given to older men who had already completed their families, and could afford to support and protect such a young virgin.

A man entered into this relationship (marriage) fully consenting that he would honor the vow of celibacy of the woman. If the young lady made the vow “rashly” then the husband or father could nullify it.

 

[Jars_of_Clay_1]

The Immaculate Conception is about Mary being protected and SAVED from original sin, from the very first moment of her conception.

Ok, now I’m totally confused. Original sin had to do with sex? I thought original sin had to do with disobedience to God?

I don’t expect you to go into this now, but all I can say is we’re totally on different pages in our thought processes. This is a whole different rabbit trail which would be interesting to talk about, but we’d still probably be on different pages.

It’s very interesting to me to read (hear) other thought processes in that we can read the same words, speak the same languages, hear the same arguments presented as truth, and never arrive at the same conclusion.

That’s ok, you love the Lord and so do I. Thanks so much for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

 

[Dokimas]

I don’t think it makes sense–at all-- that she would say “how is it possible that I WILL conceive”.

It does make sense that she would question, “How is it that I HAVE conceived.”.

However, the Scriptures very clearly state that Mary WILL conceive a child, not that she already has.

While your information is correct your point doesn’t seem to matter so it doesn’t seem to answer the question whether or not she was going to concumate her marriage at a later date.

 

[guanophore]

Matthew 1:

24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife,
25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.​

Please notice two things: first, the word ‘til’ and second, the word firstborn.

Neither of these two elements support what you are trying to say. However, this is already being well covered in another thread to which I commend your attention.

I suggest, after reading that fine post of Randy’s, you search for other threads where he has covered this material.