Question About Mary ??

[guanophore]

The above comment is one of dishonesty. Joseph didn’t take Mary in to protect her vow or preserve her vow of virginity. Joseph took her in because of the influence of the message of the angel. He had two choices, either believe the angel or believe that Mary committed adultery. Obviously he chose to believe the angel.

Please explain how you know “what Mary obviously thought” and why your opinion on this should be given priority over what has been handed down to us for the last 2000 years.

 

[Priest34]

Is all truth contained in the Bible? Why is this a stumbling block?

Mary entered into a marriage with Joseph so that she would have the protection of a husband. In other words, as a single woman, she might have been raped.

Sir Mary was already engaged or betrothed to Joseph prior to the encounter with Gabriel so your theory is inaccurate.

Joseph knew full well of Mary’s vow of consecration to the Lord and agreed to the marriage in order to protect her from violation.

Sir Joseph entered into the marriage because of his encounter with the angel, not because he was aware of the vow Mary had made.

At least, that’s one theory. :tiphat:

You are right, that is one theory and a very bad one at that…

 

[Priest34]

Please explain how you know “what Mary obviously thought” and why your opinion on this should be given priority over what has been handed down to us for the last 2000 years.

**Hef thoughts are recorded or didn’t you notice… **

 

[Priest34]

You are missing the point that sexual relations were imminent, would this have been a standard marriage. It is not usual for a virgin to remain so after going to the husband’s home.

Please tell me what makes this marriage any different than any other. The only thing different is that a woman that was engaged to a certain man was chosen by God to bring His Son into the world. Now how does that affect the traditional marriage ceremony or the standard marriage you wrote of?

I think it just does not make sense to you because you are not familiar with the culture and practices of the time in which the event took place. They did not have “single” women in that society. Even those who made their living with prostitution generally had a male guardian to protect them. Women were considered property at the time. They could not do anything without a man.

I believe this is true. I believe a sacramental marriage must be consummated. However, in Jewish culture, there were other reasons to get married, including inheritance. Marriage is both a legal contract and a change of personal relationship. Joseph could take mary into his home as a wife, even though he respected her choice to remain a consecrated virgin.

What proof do you have of that?

I am sorry that you find the Sacred Traditions handed down to us from the Apostles to be “the most idiotic thing”. However, I don’t see how we can help you. We have tried to explain why we believe the way we do, and you are not even able to appreciate a different point of view, much less agree with it. You already have made up your mind in contradiction to the Sacred Tradtition. What else is there to say?

***Unfortunately the Apostles didn’t hand down most of what the RCC embraces. And I do appreciate your efforts to try to expound on erroneous views and you are also right because my mind is made up concerning that which I believe God has revealed to me, but not so made up in some areas where I can’t be taught… ***

 

[Priest34]

1 Cor 1:21-22
For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe."

There are many mysteries of our faith that are contrary to “reason”. Mary was given to Joseph so that he could be her guardian, not to sire children. She had made a vow to God to be His spouse (consecrated virgin). Such persons were always placed in the guardianship of a responsible male, becuase that was the safest way to protect in that society. They didn’t have convents in the sense that we do today.

***There are many mysteries to your faith that are purely contradictory to God’s Word, a book you claim Catholicism gave to the world. You have no proof that Mary made a vow to God to be His wife nor do you have any proof that Joseph was only her guardian…pure speculation and you know it… ***

 

[guanophore]

You are right, that is one theory and a very bad one at that…

How did you arrive at your conclusion that Joseph marrying Jesus Mother in order to be her guardian is a “bad theory”.??

**Hef thoughts are recorded or didn’t you notice… **

What you assert as her obvious thoughts are no where recorded, Priest 34. You are reading into the text with your preconceived notions.

** It isn’t accurate because **obviously Mary thought ****what the angel Gabriel was proclaiming was going to be an immediate event and something that was going to happen even before her wedding day.

There is nothing here at all that indicates “Mary thought…was going to be immediate”. According to the text, it may have been six months or six years!!!

**This is starting to get comical. “she thought the child would need a father”…lol. I stand on my conviction(s), Mary thought what was spoken would happen immediately and prior to her wedding day. That much is clear **

Well, you certainly have a right to your convictions, even if they disagree with the teachings of the the Fathers for 2000 years.

Why does it seem comical to you that Mary would assume her promised child would be fathered by Joseph?

 

[guanophore]

‘Obviously’??? What’s obvious about it? The angel certainly didn’t say she was going to conceive immediately. You’re reading it in hindsight. You know that Mary DID conceive immediately. Mary certainly didn’t have anything to go on which would lead her to assume any of what you know happened. Think of what past examples Mary DID have to draw on. Abraham and Sarah, the parents of Samuel and Samson. All of these were natural conceptions - man and wife. And Isaac especially took some time to appear after Abraham and Sarah were told they would conceive.

I don’t think we can “know” when Mary conceived. It could have been at the time of the annuciation, or it could have been days, weeks, or even months later!

As for you ‘knowing’ that Joseph intended a physical union with Mary after marriage - you are the one who is reading your own preconceptions into the Gospel. Where is it written that this is what Joseph intended and that it happened? And beware of the word ‘until’. In the language the Bible was written in it DOESN’T automatically mean that Joseph had relations with her AFTER Christ was born.

I think he does not even realize how his preconceptions have colored his interpretation of the words.

 

[guanophore]

The written Word of God is also a Catholic Tradition. It was the Catholic Church that sifted through all the circulating Gospels and other letters and determined which of those belonged in the Bible. If you accept the Catholic Church’s authority to determine which Gospels and Epistles were Sacred Scripture and which ones were junk, why do you not think the Church knows how to interpret those books?

If you’re truly here to learn, I encourage you to spend some time looking over the links I provided above. I especially recommend listening to “One Church” which can be downloaded FREE from the Bible Christian Society.

I don’t think he is here to learn, just to spew his wrong understanding of what we believe and try to debunk it. He does not spell or write well, so must not be very educated, and clearly has very little knowledge of history, both early church history and medieval history.

 

[guanophore]

Brilliant deduction, hahahhahaha. Two years ago after I married my wife, I certainly was looking forward to consummating our marriage. The perfect will of God is still for the married to be fruitful and multiply but there is an exception where Mary is concerned because The Catholic Church can’t fathom that precious woman having intercourse with her husband. I think that is sick to be honest.
You also warned against the word “until” well in bible language the word “until” does mean AFTER. You catholics just don’t want to acknowledge that truth because in your minds you think it was degrading for Mary and Joseph to engage in intercourse when in fact it is one of God’s most beeautiful gifts.

You are wrong about this understanding of marriage among CAtholics, Priest34. Catholicism considers marriage a holy sacrament. You are also clearly unfamiliar with the high regard the Church has for human sexuality. I suggest John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, if you can manage it. But even if not, you need to be aware that you are making yourself appear ignorant here by throwing out out these misconceptions and calumnies about our faith, then degrading us for following them. Disrespect for our faith will get you banned from the forum.

Prior to what you refer to as a Catholic Tradition there was what is referred to as the Written Word of God. The Jews loved it and studied it…David said I have hid thy word in my heart…
And I don’t receive or accept the Catholic Church as an authority on spiritual matters. If anything I believe the CC has missed it terribly.

God has always perpetuated the revelation of Himself orally. Some of the Sacred Teachings were written down, some were not.

May I ask why you are here, if you think the CC has “missed it terribly”?

 

[guanophore]

So Catholics are to believe that Mary and Joseph lived together in a natural marriage. They had never made a sacramental marriage. I don’t get it? Sorry

As has been stated, Mary was betrothed to Joseph for her protection, and so that she and her son would have a guardian. Sacramental marriage had not yet been instituted (Jesus did this). Mary was a consecrated virgin, and intended to remain one forever.

 

[guanophore]

I guess Jesus was confused also when He opened the book of Isaiah…Philip was confused also when he found Nathaniel and told him we have found the one the prophets did write…

The statement you made was not whether Jesus knew which scriptures were inspired. The statement was that you did not think the Catholic Church could recognize which scriptures were inspired.

As for not entering into a realm of natural relations with his wife is total nonsense also. Mary’s womb wasn’t holy, the person in the womb was. I can see it now, if the Ark of the Covenant were recovered, you catholics would make an idol out of it. It isn’t the Ark but who was in the Ark. Finally the idea of Mary being a perpetual virgin is being laughed to scorn. You catholics make to much out of the servant, it is the one being served that deserves all the GLORY

Who are YOU to say that Mary’s womb was not holy? If a consecrated altar can make holy the gifts placed upon it…

Matt 23:17-22
18 And you say, ‘If any one swears by the altar, it is nothing; but if any one swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ 19 You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 So he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by everything on it; 21 and he who swears by the temple, swears by it and by him who dwells in it; 22 and he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it. "

Jesus did not choose to enter and develop in an unholy womb. If people died for touching the ark of the covenant, which is only a forshadowing of Mary, the ark of the New covenant, who are you to say Joseph would not be afraid (posessed of holy reverence)?

Why are you here ?? DId you come to “laugh to scorn”? How is that a representation of the Christ you claim to follow?

 

[sosayi1960]

As has been stated, Mary was betrothed to Joseph for her protection, and so that she and her son would have a guardian. Sacramental marriage had not yet been instituted (Jesus did this). Mary was a consecrated virgin, and intended to remain one forever.

I believe that Mary was a virgin prior to the birth of our Lord. I don’t buy the fact that she and Joseph never had relations afterward.
Sex between a husband and wife is a beautiful gift from God. It simply seem to contradict the rest of scripture…
God created sex and it’s good and loving, not dirty.

 

[guanophore]

Sorry, you inept theological dilettante,
but when God sanctifies a woman to carry God the Son,
her womb is sanctified. If you think otherwise, you are way off base.

Besides, I don’t care if fundamentalists laugh to scorn Mary’s perpetual virginity. Fundamentalists have nothing VALID to say anyway, since they are Johnny-Come-Latelies whose whacked out views never existed in the entire first 1500 years of Christianity all over the world.

If the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus were Mary’s children,
the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity would never have been able to even get started in the Church, let alone be believed by EVERYBODY early on ( and centuries before Constantine’s time).

Laugh all you want, buster.
You won’t be laughing on Judgement Day.
I hope you like extreme heat for long periods of time.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

I think this post is uncharitable. I have to say I share your sentiment, but we are called to be loving, and instruct the ignorant with patience. Let us pray for one another, and for the binding up of that evil spirit, whichever one it is, that has entered in here.

 

[guanophore]

**Typical response of an overly sensitive religious pharisee that can’t stand the truth. Such love has been projected in your words. I simply disagree with your religious darkness and you have me burning in hell. Oh so typical of an insecure religous fanatic that truly knows your religion but not Christ. May God get a hold of you before you are the one crying out for a finger to be dipped in water that your tongue may be cooled… **

No, Priest34, you did not “simply disagree” with anyone. You have been reviling our faith and practices from the start, and you have disrespected our Lord’s mother. You have also been judgmental, and condemnatory. You have been posting errors (your incorrect understanding of Catholic faith) and using a sneering tone.

I can assure you that your presentation of your “true gospel” in here will not help anyone to be "gotten a hold of " by God, since your manner is disrespectful of His commandments. If Mary were standing right next to you, would you tell her to her face that her womb was not holy? How could any part of a person be right next to Christ for nine months, and not be holy?! Your disrespect boggles the mind.

Where in the world did you ever learn that Christians outside of the catholic church do not accept the bible Jesus and His disciples used…

This is one of those comments that let your ignorance slip out, Priest34. The protestant reformers took out many books from the Bible because they sounded “too Catholic”. These writings they referred to as “apocropha”. These books are included in the Scriptures that Jesus and the Apostles used.
Priest34;2385689:

do you have heartburn from to many wafers or some type of dizziness from that funny grape juice?

This is one of those disrespectful comments that is a violation of the forum rules. You may disagree with us if you wish about our beliefs, but you are not permitted to make rude and inconsiderate remarks. How do you construe in your mind that this behavior is Christlike?

No one is throwing out the NT, certainly not me, the only thing I am throwing out is the falsehoods of catholicism.

How can you throw out something that does not belong to you in the first place?

Wouldn’t it make more sense if you just refrained from being in this forum?

Why are you here?

 

[guanophore]

This question was moved from another thread wher it was off topic.

When did Jesus say The Lord’s Supper is to be celebrated with bread and wine?

** YOU DON’T EVEN NEED TWO BRAIN CELLS TO SEE HOW IDIOTIC THE TEACHING OF THE EUCHARIST REALLY IS. IT WAS SO IMPORTANT THAT PETER WHO WROTE TWO EPISTLES OVERWHELMS THE READER WITH THE TOPIC OF THE EUCHARIST…HMMM**

I AM FULLY AWARE OF WHAT PAUL AND JESUS MEANT AND IT CERTAINLY WASN’T ABOUT EATING AND DRINKING JESUS. I OFTENED WONDERED WHAT ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE AT THE LAST SUPPER ACCORDING TO CATHOLICS. JESUS WHO IS THE PASSOVER ATE THE PASSOVER WITH HIS DISCIPLES, SO LOGICALLY JESUS AND THE DISCIPLES WERE ACTUALLY EATING JESUS…HMMM

PLEASE SHOW ME ANYWHERE IN SCRIPTURE WHERE JESUS TAUGHT, WHEN THE PRIEST SAYS THE WORDS OF CONSECRATION, TRANSUBSTANTIATION TAKES PLACE. PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE PAUL AND YOUR SUPPOSED FIRST POPE TEACHES IT.

**Not a hard teaching for me because I know exactly what the Lord was teaching and it in my opinon has to do with the fulfillment of what was prayed as seen in John 17. But it was hard for them because as Catholics do they did. They took Jesus’ words literally and as a result became dismayed. But let me ask you something, if you would take the time to read a bit more closely don’t you find that the disciples who eventually left are still there after what they concluded was a hard saying? And didn’t Jesus offer them something much more offensive(please see verses 61 and 62) "what and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was BEFORE(OOPS THERE HE GOES AGAIN MESSING WITH THE TOPIC OF HIS DEITY). I think they were bothered a bit earlier when He spoke of His pre-existence(verses 38(I CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN)-41,42). So let’s be honest and see what is really there. The disciples were still there after their misunderstanding of Jesus’ words.

Please give me a break, not once did the supposed pope offer any teaching on the Eucharist, that bothers me like my observation concerning Jesus never acknowledging Mary as His mother…hmmmm

But you can eat and drink damnation if the emblems represent something special and unique. Remember Matthew 25 where Jesus identified Himself with the incarcerated, the hungry, the thirsty? Certainly those individuals weren’t Jesus but He made it seem that what you did for them, you did for Him… ******

Warning: to all those who would like to help answer this, the OP is very hostile and anticatholic, and prone to making derogatory remarks about the Catholic faith.

 

[guanophore]

When did Jesus say The Lord’s Supper is to be celebrated with bread and wine?

I moved this question to a new thread, since it is off topic here.

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=2387345#post2387345

Not staying on topic is also against the forum rules, Priest34. If you really are a bible believing Christian, as you claim to be, I am surprised you are not acquainted with the passages about the Lord’s supper. I am also surprised that you keep breaking various forum rules. It is not a good witness.

‘DO THIS!!!’ ‘This’ being ‘take and eat … take and drink’ which he said whilst handing them bread and wine. Do you really need me to draw a picture for you, its clear words are beyond you.

Brothers and sisters, let us not feed into him by responding to off topic posts. Also, let us be mindful that an evil spirit is at work right now, and we need to put on the whole armor of God and not respond with negativity.

 

[guanophore]

***Unfortunately the Apostles didn’t hand down most of what the RCC embraces. ***

How do you determine this, since you don’t know the content of what was handed down? The scripture is only part of that divine deposit. Nothing the RCC teaches contradicts the scripture, including the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Priest34;2387065:

And I do appreciate your efforts to try to expound on erroneous views and you are also right because my mind is made up concerning that which I believe God has revealed to me, but not so made up in some areas where I can’t be taught…

You certainly have not demonstrated in this thread that there is any area in which you can be taught. You have come across as arrogant, loud, insulting, and intractible.

That is why I keep asking you why you are here. You do not appear to be here to be taught, and you certainly can’t believe that anyone would ACCEPT YOUR teaching, when it comes in such a rude manner, so what is left? Stirring up negativity?

***There are many mysteries to your faith that are purely contradictory to God’s Word, a book you claim Catholicism gave to the world. You have no proof that Mary made a vow to God to be His wife nor do you have any proof that Joseph was only her guardian…pure speculation and you know it… ***

Listen to what you are saying Priest34. You are castigating us that we have no “proof” for our beliefs. That is the DEFINITION of a mystery of faith! The reason it is mysterious is that it is beyond the grasp of the rational mind. It is faith because it is the evidence of things not seen. You are right, I cannot “prove” there even IS a God. I cannot prove that he died for my sins, or rose from the dead, or ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. I believe these things by faith, because they have been revealed by God, just as the doctrines of Mary hve been revealed by God. The divine deposit of faith is not “pure speculation”, it is the revelation of God to us. Jesus has revealed in His mother what He has promised to all of us, that we can be one with Him, and dwell in heaven, where He is until He shall come again upon the clouds, and every eye shall see Him.

 

[guanophore]

I believe that Mary was a virgin prior to the birth of our Lord. I don’t buy the fact that she and Joseph never had relations afterward.

That’s ok, since it is not for sale.

Sex between a husband and wife is a beautiful gift from God. It simply seem to contradict the rest of scripture…
God created sex and it’s good and loving, not dirty.

If the teachings seem to contradict the scripture, it is because the reader is not fully understanding either one, or the other, because there are no Catholic teachings that contradict the scriptures. The Scriptures ARE the Catholic Teachings!

God did create sex, and it is good, and loving (or should be) and it is a beautiful gift of God. God also created the womb of Mary, and it is also good, and consecrated unto Him. And blessed is the Fruit of that womb!

 

[jimmy85]

***Unfortunately the Apostles didn’t hand down most of what the RCC embraces. And I do appreciate your efforts to try to expound on erroneous views and you are also right because my mind is made up concerning that which I believe God has revealed to me, but not so made up in some areas where I can’t be taught… ***

Have you read the church fathers?
They were the diciples of the apostoles.

st Igantious of Antioch, disciple of st John.
epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter 19.

"Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring, "

So Does God reveal you stuffs that are against the teachings of the apostoles, and of the church fathers?

 

[jimmy85]

***Unfortunately the Apostles didn’t hand down most of what the RCC embraces. And I do appreciate your efforts to try to expound on erroneous views and you are also right because my mind is made up concerning that which I believe God has revealed to me, but not so made up in some areas where I can’t be taught… ***

St Ignatious (disciple of John)
Epistle to the philipians
Chapter 4. Have but one Eucharist,

Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God.

Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics.
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes.

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop.
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.