Prove it!

[Leslie_Polley]

Guanophore… Yet another reason I love this forum.

BTW, what does the name mean?

Not to Hijack the thread at all, but…

FSC

What does the word “know her mean” Refering Mary…Joseph did not KNOW her until after her first born…If they did’t have anymore children they sure had sex because thats what the word “know her” refers to in the Word. That is not herisy

 

[Dokimas]

Yes, you do. But it is because you dont recognize that the Church He founded is Cathlolic. this will become clear when you read the early fathers.

No, it is not hard to synthesize teh NT and the original teachings of the Apostles. This is what Sacred Tradition does.

It is hard to synthsize you VIEWS with both, because you have departed from the Apostolic faith.

As I always say, you are welcome to your opinion, even if it may be incorrect.​

If I were you I wouldn’t try to synthesize my beliefs with your church where they differ. Show me where my belief are supported in the Bible and I’ll deal with that.​

I am confused, though, how I could have departed from something I was never a part of which is the CC. Again, please show me, from the Bible, where I’ve departed from the teachings of the apostles in the NT. I’m sure I could show you where I (that is me, myself, I) don’t live up to what I believe is true. I never said I was a good Christian.

 

[Leslie_Polley]

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.

It says in the aword that Joseph did not “know” Have sex with, Mary until after Jesus was born. He Knew her after that. It was a virgin birth, however she was not a prepetual virgin…you are right in your thought…You find that in Math.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

No we took Holy Communion with a waffer that stuck to the roof of your mouth, and we never got the wine or juice… In many of the CC they still do it that way. I was refering to acctually breadinng bread…and to say that not using wine is ludicrous is rediculous…You give wine to acoholics…not wisdom and it says we are not to stunble our brother. And if the sacrament couldn’t be accomplished in the CC without wine, then why for so many years the people could not have any…only the Host. and no Jesus did not hop down to the 7-11, and pick up some grape juice, but there was unfermented grape juice that was put in the new slins to ferment…It takes time for wine to bloom…as one point it is just grape juice, so the sarcasum is silly. and as far as our breaking of bread and drinking of the grape, we weill leave that to Jesus and see if its accepted or not…and unless your name is God…do not judge.

Ok, this one first.

The reason the CC stopped providing wine for a time was because there was a heresy that said that the bread was not enough, that it did not contain the body AND blood of the Lord. So to emphasize the point that either species contains both the body and blood of Christ they disallowed wine for a time. That has since changed, because that heresy was gone.

Second, new wine (WINE) was put into new skins. the wine was fermented in barrels. The way they got the grape juice for the wine was by stomping it. Would you drink grape juice that someones feet had been in? The fermentation process sterilizes the fluid (to an extent) and makes wine. he did NOT drink juice. there is no way to believe this. And giving wine to alcoholics does NOT put them off the wagon, since it is the blood of Christ.

What does the word “know her mean” Refering Mary…Joseph did not KNOW her until after her first born…If they did’t have anymore children they sure had sex because thats what the word “know her” refers to in the Word. That is not herisy

Gah, this again. read the earlier posts, I wont go into this again.

FSC

 

[Dokimas]

The rest of us know, because we received the Apostolic faith, rather than trying to glean crumbs from the NT,​

I would agree you think you know but beware of: 1Co 8:2 And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know.
BTW, speaking of disrespect: you think the NT is but crumbs?

Even if any siblings were not at the foot of the cross, they would still have legal obligations to care for their mother.

-Would Mary have go agaist the instruction of Jesus? If Jesus passed His responsibility of His mother to John, they would have been obedient to Him no matter the law.

If these “siblings” were concerned enough to go take Him into custody because they thought He was off His nut, they were responsible enough to take on the family duty to Mary. The fact is, there were no other children of Mary, Joseph was dead, and Mary lost her only child on the cross. That is why Jesus gave her to John.​

How do you know that Jesus’ siblings would have taken Jesus into custody if He had any?

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

It says in the aword that Joseph did not “know” Have sex with, Mary until after Jesus was born. He Knew her after that. It was a virgin birth, however she was not a prepetual virgin…you are right in your thought…You find that in Math.

GAAAAHHHHHHH
Ok, the word until is a word that signifies something different than your assumption.

To steal an example, if I say A does not happen until B lets go down the logic trail here:

A wont happen until

B happens

Your logic:

B happens so A must always follow

Good logic:

B happens so we can know that A did not happen until B but we CANNOT know that A happened after. Non sequitor and the old Doki standby Context context context.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Dokimas
Re: Prove it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by guanophore View Post
The rest of us know, because we received the Apostolic faith, rather than trying to glean crumbs from the NT,​

I would agree you think you know but beware of: 1Co 8:2 And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know.
BTW, speaking of disrespect: you think the NT is but crumbs?

Even if any siblings were not at the foot of the cross, they would still have legal obligations to care for their mother.

-Would Mary have go agaist the instruction of Jesus? If Jesus passed His responsibility of His mother to John, they would have been obedient to Him no matter the law.

If these “siblings” were concerned enough to go take Him into custody because they thought He was off His nut, they were responsible enough to take on the family duty to Mary. The fact is, there were no other children of Mary, Joseph was dead, and Mary lost her only child on the cross. That is why Jesus gave her to John.​

How do you know that Jesus’ siblings would have taken Jesus into custody if He had any?

He was not saying the NT was crumbs, but that your reading of it got only crumbs, not whole bread.

Mary would not have gone against the will of God and God would not have gone against the law. If there were siblings, they would have been outside when jesus made the statement that prophets can gain no headway in their own town. This would signify that they did not believe (if he had siblings) that he was the Christ, or even that he was a prophet. So they would have pitched a fit if their brother tried to break the law. We see no evidence of this. Anywhere. Jesus gave her to John (and through John to all of us) because he did NOT have siblings.

 

[Dokimas]

I think your assertion is false, Doki. I think the longevity of the Church testifies to this.

However, I think it is false because the CC is not a mere Christian organization (a man made entity). On the contrary, it is founded by Christ, built upon the foundation of Apostles and prophets, and she settles disputes infallibly as He intended because she has Christ as her Head, and the HS as her soul.

Thanks for your opinion. Maybe one day you’ll know for sure (yes I understand you think you really know; we’ll see, won’t we?)

 

[Dokimas]

Your guess is wrong, Doki. the earlyl church had furious outcry against false teachings, and the evidence is there. The heresy that Mary had other children is one of those false teachings. If and when you ever get ready to learn your family history, you will find this in the documents, as well as the unbroken teaching of the Apostolic Church.

There is nothing in the NT htat “reveals she had children”. One can only extrapolate such a conclusion by ignoring the evidence.

I am glad you are gleaning, and that you have an opinion. It is my prayer that your gleanings and opinions will one day be informed by the facts. And I would be right for me to hope the same for you.

Did you misread my post or did I miss represent my meaning. Here’s my post that you copied into your post.

Originally Posted by Dokimas​

My point is that** false teachings have been around (like gnosticism) from the beginning**. My guess is that one such teaching is that Mary had no more children. The NT writers didn’t have to directly address this as a wrong teaching because the NT has things in it that reveals she had children, subtle as they may be, so the wrong teaching about Mary’s celebacy must not have come til after Paul and John finished their writings. Of course, that’s my opinion gleaned from the NT and your comments.

 

[Dokimas]

He was not saying the NT was crumbs, but that your reading of it got only crumbs, not whole bread. It’s better to say I’m only capable of getting crumbs than call the NT crumbs. Better to judge me than the Word of God.

Mary would not have gone against the will of God and God would not have gone against the law. Was it lawful for Jesus to have His disciples pluck corn of the Sabaath? If there were siblings, they would have been outside when jesus made the statement that prophets can gain no headway in their own town. I have no clue what your meaning is here. This would signify that they did not believe (if he had siblings) that he was the Christ, or even that he was a prophet. So they would have pitched a fit if their brother tried to break the law. Or they would have obeyed the will of their mother who would have obeyed Jesus’ wishes. We see no evidence of this. Anywhere. Jesus gave her to John (and through John to all of us) because he did NOT have siblings. We see no evidence that through John we get Mary as our mother./QUOTE]

 

[Dokimas]

GAAAAHHHHHHH
Ok, the word until is a word that signifies something different than your assumption.

To steal an example, if I say A does not happen until B lets go down the logic trail here:

A wont happen until

B happens

Your logic:

B happens so A must always follow

Good logic:

B happens so we can know that A did not happen until B but we CANNOT know that A happened after. Non sequitor and the old Doki standby Context context context.

Context: marriage; marriage - marital relations and children. Thanks for the logic and context lesson. See it works when used correctly.

 

[tweetymom]

No, Tweety, Des is not disrespectful at all, not one bit.

You might feel disrespected because you are not getting approval for your error, but it was a very respectful expression of how we feel when you insult all of us and our faith by claiming to be Catholic when you are not. To be Catholic means that you believe all that the Church teaches. You left the Catholic faith a long time ago, and though your body is back in the parish, your faith is not Catholic. God bless you for the faith you have. It is obviously fervent. But it is not Catholic. Claiming that it is insults all of us.

God Bless you on you journey and may God Bless you as you continue,

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Context: marriage; marriage - marital relations and children. Thanks for the logic and context lesson. See it works when used correctly.

lol totally (this was funny, and in a good way). This is, of course, assuming that Marriage inevitably leads to sex, which goes against history and the traditions of the Jews at the time of Christ.

FidesSpesCarita;6083689:

He was not saying the NT was crumbs, but that your reading of it got only crumbs, not whole bread. It’s better to say I’m only capable of getting crumbs than call the NT crumbs. Better to judge me than the Word of God.

he was not judging the word of God, he was saying that YOU receive but crumbs. NOT that the NT was Crumbs.

Mary would not have gone against the will of God and God would not have gone against the law. Was it lawful for Jesus to have His disciples pluck corn of the Sabaath? If he had them do it then yes. Hed broke NO OT laws, since they are the word of God If there were siblings, they would have been outside when jesus made the statement that prophets can gain no headway in their own town. I have no clue what your meaning is here.I knew it was tenuous, I just hoped noone would call me on it. But my explanation is the very next sentence. This would signify that they did not believe (if he had siblings) that he was the Christ, or even that he was a prophet. So they would have pitched a fit if their brother tried to break the law. Or they would have obeyed the will of their mother who would have obeyed Jesus’ wishes.The will of a woman at the time was entirely subject to men. There would have been no way they would have followed the will of their mother. They would have followed their law. We see no evidence of this. Anywhere. Jesus gave her to John (and through John to all of us) because he did NOT have siblings. We see no evidence that through John we get Mary as our mother.I know, that is part of the Traditions of the Church. I dont have references at the moment, but still./QUOTE]

 

[tweetymom]

GAAAAHHHHHHH
Ok, the word until is a word that signifies something different than your assumption.

To steal an example, if I say A does not happen until B lets go down the logic trail here:

A wont happen until

B happens

Your logic:

B happens so A must always follow

Good logic:

B happens so we can know that A did not happen until B but we CANNOT know that A happened after. Non sequitor and the old Doki standby Context context context.

so the scripture in Matthew He knew her not means he said Oh Hi I am sure glad to meet you?

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

so the scripture in Matthew He knew her not means he said Oh Hi I am sure glad to meet you?

GAAAAAHHhHH not at all. It meant he did not have sex with her until the birth of Christ. The word UNTIL does not mean that the antithesis occured, only that the thesis occured (in this case that they did not have sex).

This has already been discussed ad nauseum. please read those for a deeper discussion.

FSC

EDIT: Sorry for the GAAAAHHh thing, but this is like a dead horse that some people (myself included) keep kicking. It is getting tiresome

 

[tweetymom]

GAAAAAHHhHH not at all. It meant he did not have sex with her until the birth of Christ. The word UNTIL does not mean that the antithesis occured, only that the thesis occured (in this case that they did not have sex).

This has already been discussed ad nauseum. please read those for a deeper discussion.

FSC

EDIT: Sorry for the GAAAAHHh thing, but this is like a dead horse that some people (myself included) keep kicking. It is getting tiresome

So are you saying that you believe that Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus birth?

 

[tweetymom]

Thanks for your opinion. Maybe one day you’ll know for sure (yes I understand you think you really know; we’ll see, won’t we?)

Yes we shall see and be like Jesus.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

So are you saying that you believe that Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus birth?

Absolutely not, quite the opposite. They never had sex.

 

[tweetymom]

No, Tweety, Des is not disrespectful at all, not one bit.

You might feel disrespected because you are not getting approval for your error, but it was a very respectful expression of how we feel when you insult all of us and our faith by claiming to be Catholic when you are not. To be Catholic means that you believe all that the Church teaches. You left the Catholic faith a long time ago, and though your body is back in the parish, your faith is not Catholic. God bless you for the faith you have. It is obviously fervent. But it is not Catholic. Claiming that it is insults all of us.

I am not in error and if and when I need approval or disaproval God will do that. But gosh thanks anyway, And may God Grace shine upon you.

 

[tweetymom]

Absolutely not, quite the opposite. They never had sex.

And you know this because??? Someone told you but the scriptures say different.