Question About Mary ??

[LilyM]

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

Well according to you there’s no sure basis for the canon of the NT anyway, since you reject the truth that it’s the Catholic Church that did the work analysing the many competing writings around at the time and determining which were genuine and inspired.

So whatever the NT is YOU can never be sure it’s inspired scripture - not a word of it. Go off and read the Gospel of Thomas or the Acts of Pilate or something - they’re worth as much as anything in the NT on your logic.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

hum… I’m starting to wonder if Priest43 here is Kujo

I don’t think they are the same person, though he may be a friend of Kujo’s whom Kujo sicked on us in place of himself. They may be members of the same little house of worship, who knows?

I’ve noted some differences:

Kujo was a better speller.
Priest43, however, is better at conjugating verbs.
Kujo frequently used the expression, "They wasthis and
They was that, etc., instead of They WERE this or that.

So no, based on literary style, I don’t think Priest43 is Kujo…

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Priest34]

Well your grape juice and wafer certainly isn’t! And if you’re not celebrating the Lord’s Supper with bread and wine as He did, then you’re disobeying His command to ‘do this in memory of me’.

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

 

[LilyM]

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

‘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.

 

[Priest34]

‘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.

Well I guess I should get eleven other guys, some lamb, create the same atmosphere if possible and do exactly what they did…

 

[LilyM]

Well I guess I should get eleven other guys, some lamb, create the same atmosphere if possible and do exactly what they did…

The irony of you accusing us of creating traditions when you blindly refuse to follow the SIMPLEST, PLAINEST command of Our Lord.

Unlike St Paul - HE knew the significance of the bread and wine, that is WAS the Body and Blood, without which, as Christ said, you have no life within you. Believe them if not me or the Church.

You clearly seem to think that both Our Lord and Paul didn’t know what they were talking about, and are as bad as those who walked away from Jesus in John 6 finding Christ’s teaching too hard.

 

[Priest34]

‘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.

Bread and wine, I thought it was Jesus handing over Jesus…

 

[Priest34]

The irony of you accusing us of creating traditions when you blindly refuse to follow the SIMPLEST, PLAINEST command of Our Lord.

Unlike St Paul - HE knew the significance of the bread and wine, that is WAS the Body and Blood, without which, as Christ said, you have no life within you. Believe them if not me or the Church.

You clearly seem to think that both Our Lord and Paul didn’t know what they were talking about, and are as bad as those who walked away from Jesus in John 6 finding Christ’s teaching too hard.

Oh I know exactly what Jesus and Paul were talking about but I have severe doubts with the CC’s speech. And as for John 6, you guys really messed that up. Please study it again much more thoroughly and find the real reason why the disciples left…

 

[LilyM]

Oh I know exactly what Jesus and Paul were talking about but I have severe doubts with the CC’s speech. And as for John 6, you guys really messed that up. Please study it again much more thoroughly and find the real reason why the disciples left…

No you don’t understand the first thing of what Jesus and Paul said - otherwise you wouldn’t have been so laughably stupid as to bring lamb into it.

If you had two brain cells to rub together you’d know what was important - what Paul wrote of when HE retold the story of the Last Supper, which is the bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood of Christ.

Certainly mere bread and wine never damned anybody who ate and drank without discerning. Nor could even a symbolic Eucharist do so. Only the Real Presence of Our Lord under the appearance of bread and wine, which ALL the Apostolic faiths acknowledge, would do so.

 

[Priest34]

No you don’t understand the first thing of what Jesus and Paul said - otherwise you wouldn’t have been so laughably stupid as to bring lamb into it.

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

If you had two brain cells to rub together you’d know what was important - what Paul wrote of when HE retold the story of the Last Supper, which is the bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood of Christ.

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

Certainly mere bread and wine never damned anybody who ate and drank without discerning. Nor could even a symbolic Eucharist do so. Only the Real Presence of Our Lord under the appearance of bread and wine, which ALL the Apostolic faiths acknowledge, would do so.

** 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**

 

[LilyM]

‘This is a hard teaching, who can accept it?’ There is nothing hard to accept about a symbolic ‘Lord’s Supper’. Real Presence of the Body and Blood in the Eucharist (forget the concept of transubstantiation for the moment) is the ‘hard teaching’ which you don’t accept.

Peter didn’t write about it because he didn’t need to. The NT writers wrote mainly to specific communities to address specific problems in those communities. If this wasn’t an issue among those Peter was writing to, no need to mention it. Unlike in Paul’s letter where people were receiving unworthily, turning up to services drunk or what have you.

Like I said you can’t possibly ‘eat and drink’ a merely symbolic supper to your damnation, nor are you guilty of the Body and Blood if you unworthily take a mere symbol of Christ. It HAS to mean Real Presence.

As for Jesus - who says he ate any of the bread or drank any of the wine after the words had been spoken over it??? Show me that since you’re so smart. In fact he said ‘I will NOT drink of any more wine’

 

[Priest34]

‘This is a hard teaching, who can accept it?’ There is nothing hard to accept about a symbolic ‘Lord’s Supper’. Real Presence of the Body and Blood in the Eucharist (forget the concept of transubstantiation for the moment) is the ‘hard teaching’ which you don’t accept.

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.

Peter didn’t write about it because he didn’t need to. The NT writers wrote mainly to specific communities to address specific problems in those communities. If this wasn’t an issue among those Peter was writing to, no need to mention it. Unlike in Paul’s letter where people were receiving unworthily, turning up to services drunk or what have you.

**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 ******

Like I said you can’t possibly ‘eat and drink’ a merely symbolic supper to your damnation, nor are you guilty of the Body and Blood if you unworthily take a mere symbol of Christ. It HAS to mean Real Presence.

**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… **

 

[LilyM]

If you want to discuss the Eucharist then start a separate thread before we get this one way off track.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Priest34 wrote:
I am sorry but the above might be a church tradition but it certainly isn’t a biblical testimony. There is nothing at all to suggest that Mary made such a vow and even if she did why would she enter into a realm of marriage?

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.

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.

At least, that’s one theory. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

** 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**

Three points.

1. Don’t use all caps.
2. Don’t use all bold.
3. Learn to use the quote function properly.

If you want to insert your comments into the middle of something you are quoting, you have to manually insert square brackets. Here is the original passage I want to comment on: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.
In order to show you what you need to do, I have to use a different set of brackets for illustrative purposes only. I’ll use { and } instead of and ] so that you can see where the brackets should be located, and I’ll insert my comments in red text.
{quote}You don’t even need two brain cells to see how idiotic the teaching of the eucharist really is.{/quote} I’m inserting my comments here in red. {quote}It was so important that Peter, who wrote two epistles, overwhelms the reader with the topic of the eucharist.{/quote}Hope this helps.
Now, wherever you see the { or } you have to actually use a square bracket or ]. So the paragraph above comes out like this:

You don’t even need two brain cells to see how idiotic the teaching of the eucharist really is.

I’m inserting my comments here in red.

It was so important that Peter, who wrote two epistles, overwhelms the reader with the topic of the eucharist.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[guanophore]

Please forgive my bluntness but I don’t see the logic in your response. It seems that Mary was saying in response to the angel’s statement that it is impossible for me to be pregnant because I have not participated in sexual behavior. There is nothing at all in her response that suggests that she would remaina virgin.
Thank you

You are right, she had not been sexual. But neither was she planning to be. She was engaged and any usual young Jewish gal about to enter the home of her husband would expect to engage in sexual behavior. But she did not intend to do so, which is why she asked how it would be.

 

[guanophore]

Again that makes no sense at all. Joseph was bethrothed to Mary, not married. She asked a legitimate question because it was true that she had not known man as of yet. It is not foreign for her to be inquisitive concerning the announcement, as a matter of fact it was very logical and sensible to ask such a question. The magnitude of what was to take place was overwhelming and for Mary to ask what she did was perfectly normal.

In the Jewish tradition, the betrothed were already married. There was a long period of engagement, but they were considered husband and wife already. That is why, when Joseph discovered she was pregnant, he would have to divorce her (quietly). It was more than just breaking an engagement.

I find the angel’s request to Joseph to be interesting also. “Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife”. Why such a question, why, “and took unto him his wife”?

From Josph’s point of view, Mary had been with another man,a nd therefore ought to marry the one with whom she had obviously been unfaithful to him.

 

[guanophore]

You will have to forgive me again but you spelling leaves much to be desired. As a result of it I could not make sense out of that which provided little sense.
Joseph was betrothed to Mary which in the hebrew means they were engaged. Joseph being the just man that he was, was more than willing to be a blessing to Mary by putting her away privily or privately(whichever you choose). The reason for such a desire is because he thought his engagement to Mary had been violated until he was informed by the angel of the truth.
You see the will of God was and still is to be fruitful and multiply. Why in the world would Joseph enter into an engagement with a woman that wanted to be celibate. Again your view makes no sense at all

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.

 

[guanophore]

*I am sorry again, but your post still has me confused. Mary’s concern was how is it possible for me to conceive seeing I have not known a man( or have had sex). She and Joseph were engaged to be married so it is sensible for that godly woman to have such a concern.

It makes absolute sense to me that a virgin would ask how can this be seeing I am a virgin, not that I plan on remaining one… *

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.

Now the above makes no sense at all to me. Lady gets married but wants to remain a virgin…hmmmmm

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 have a serious question that I don’t understand. If Mary and Joseph never had marital sexual relations, then they were Not married in the eyes of the church. Is that Correct? My understanding is that in order to have a valid marriage it Must be consummated? Please let me know. Thanks!

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.

The above is the most idiotic thing I have ever come across. The most logical answer is Mary and Joseph hadn’t married yet, thus,"How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? There is no indication at all that Mary was planning on remaining a virgin, none whatsoever.
And your comment concerning young brides may be accurate but it certainly isn’t when it concerns one that is only engaged.

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?

 

[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.

It is not dishonest, but both things are true. Joseph did take mary because of what the angel said. But the text does not specify what happened before. He was planning to take Mary before the Annuciation, and only changed His mind because she was found to be pregnant. It is the prior circumstances that are not included in the NT.

Some light can be shed on the culture and practices of the times through the THE PROTEVANGELION OF JAMES
An Historical Account of the Birth of Christ, and the Perpetual Virgin Mary, His Mother, by James the Lesser, Cousin and Brother of the Lord Jesus, a Chief Apostle and First Bishop of the Christians in Jerusalem.

earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html

1. But Mary continued in the temple as a dove educated there and received her food from the hand of an angel.
2. And when she was twelve years of age, the priests met in a council, and said, Behold, Mary is twelve years of age; what will we do with her, for fear that the holy place of the Lord our God should be defiled?
3. Then replied the priests to Zacharias the high-priest, You stand at the altar of the Lord, and enter into the holy place, to make petitions concerning her, so whatsoever the Lord will show to you, do it.
4. Then the high-priest entered into the Holy of Holies, and taking away with him the breast-plate of judgment made prayers concerning her;
5. And behold the angel of the Lord came to him, and said, Zacharias, Zacharias, go forth and call together all the widowers among the people, and let every one of them bring his rod, and he by whom the Lord will show a sign will be the husband of Mary.
6. And the criers went out through all Judaea, and all the people ran and met together when the trumpet of the Lord sounded.
7. [New paragraph in the oldest extant manuscripts] Joseph also, throwing away the hatchet, went out to meet them; and when they were met, they went to the high-priest, taking every man his rod.
8. After the high-priest had received their rods, he went into the temple to pray;
9. And when he had finished his prayer, he took the rods, and went forth and distributed them, and no miracle attended them.
10. The last rod was taken by Joseph, and behold a dove proceeded out of the rod, and flew upon the head of Joseph.
11. And the high-priest said, Joseph, you are the person chosen to take the Virgin of the Lord, to keep her for him:
12. But Joseph refused, saying, I am an old man, and have children, but she is young, and I fear, for fear that I should appear ridiculous in Israel.
13. Then the high-priest replied, Joseph, fear the Lord your God, and remember how God dealt with Dathan, Korah, and Abiram, how the earth opened and swallowed them up, because of their contradiction.
14. Now therefore, Joseph, fear God, unless the like things should happen in your family.
15. Joseph, then being afraid, took her to his house and said to Mary, Behold I have taken you from the temple of the Lord, and now I will leave you in my house; I must go to attend to my trade of building. The Lord be with you.