The not so virgin Mary

[rev_kevin]

We are forbidden by Apostolic command to accept any other gospel than the one which was committed to the Church by them. It is not a "point of view on the names’ but part of the Once for all Divine Deposit of faith to the Church. We are not at liberty to add or subtract from it.

I’m glad my faith don’t FORBID me to look of accept other gospels. I’m glad they let me have my own thoughts. So there is no proof just the church saying this is how it is, this is how you MUST think, you have no right to a mind of your own, just listen and obey to what we say even though it MIGHT not be right. Is that what your saying to me.

I doubt any of the Apostles ever envisioned such a travesty as Sola Scriptura. If they had, they might have written more precisely. However, the ambiguity of the written Word still does not allow us to depart from what they taught.

Did Thomas believe everything he was told, I think not. How do you think he got the name “doubting Thomas.” Did he not ask Jesus, even tho he see him, to touch the nail holes in his hands and the hole in his side for proof that it was really Jesus. So what makes you any different then he was. Did Jesus shun him and tell him to get away and never speak of him again. No he did not. Even though he doubted he was still accepted,

It is not myself about which I lack all the details. They are not provided in the text. What I am sure of is that the Church has always known and believed that the Blessed Mother of Christ was “ever virgin”. That means, whatever relationship these people had to Jesus they were not offspring of His mother and Joseph.

Mary, a woman referred to as the “sister” of the Mother of our Lord, is standing near the cross with Mary of Magdela.

John 19:25
25 So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene.

Jesus’ mother is at the cross with John. A little distance away is her “sister” Mary, the wife of Clopas(Alphaeus), Mary of Magdala, and other scripture says “the other women”.

Mark 15:40-41
40 There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo’me, 41 who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered to him; and also many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem.

This Mary is the mother of James the younger, Joses and Salome.

This Mary is the one that went to the tomb with Mary of Magdela, not Jesus’ Mother:

Mark 15:46-47
47 Mary Mag’dalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.

Mark 16:1-2
1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo’me, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.

(neither Mary mentioned here is the mother of Jesus)

Luke 24:10-11
10 Now it was Mary Mag’dalene and Jo-an’na and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told this to the apostles;

Jude 1
1:1 Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James,

Jude, the brother of James, is not the brother of Jesus.

Mark 6:3
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?"

The Mary who is mother to these, identified in Scripture as the “sister” of our Lord’s mother, is married to Clopas.

Believe me, I do consider other ways of interpreting the scripture, but I cannot do so in such a manner that abandons the deposit of faith given by the Apostles to the Church. They personally knew Jesus. Don’t you think they would have noticed if His mother had other children?

Did Thomas’ doubting cause him to abandon the disposit of faith. After he doubted Jesus, the Lord himself and was still a Apostle. Why are you any different.

If it lacks all detail and you really can’t prove your point, then how do you know it right. Because they said so. Do you always believe what people tell you to believe. Don’t you not want solid proof. If you were accused of a wrong doing and they didn’t have hard proof against you but they say they did, will you accept that at the expence of your good name. Will you not want solid proof of the aligations against you. Remember Thomas.

 

[gregvalc]

I find it very humorous that a 14 year old girl can lie about not being a virgin after getting herself pregnant, and her lie becomes the basis for a whole new religion.

 

[Louie1983]

I find it very humorous that a 14 year old girl can lie about not being a virgin after getting herself pregnant, and her lie becomes the basis for a whole new religion.

 

[Good_Fella]

These were common names back then just like we have common names today. What about the name Joseph that is mentioned as his brother, he’s not part of the 12.

James, Jude, and Joseph were cousins of Jesus, sons of “the other mary”, Joseph not included as an apostle. Do you honestly believe that Jesus had uterine brothers, cousins, and apostles all with the same names? That’s a remarkable coincidence, don’t you think?

I don’t believe I mentioned anything about sibblings at the cross. As a matter of fact I didn’t mention aything you wrote here.

Well, I’m mentioning it, since it’s something one should consider.

You have not mentioned anything about what I wrote on, which was 1 Corinthians 7:3-8. Kinda by passed that one didn’t ya. Thanks for conferming what I said about not willing to accept othere points of views, that they will quote scripture. That you are wrong no matter what and everyone eles is wrong.

The early Church Fathers Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus referred to Mary as “the Virgin” in their writings. Obviously they were aware that Mary had no other children. Why should I accept the “opinions” of someone who is severed from the historic Apostolic faith 1900 years later?

Scripture must be interpreted in light of apostolic Sacred Tradition, from whence the written Word of God proceeds.

Paul’s instructions (not commands) to the Corinthians apply to “ordinary” married couples. I made it clear in my last reply that Mary had already miraculously conceived and borne a divine Son of another Person while she and Joseph were betrothed. By virtue of the Incarnation, Mary now belonged to God as his bride. Her body was his. The word “overshadow” in Luke 1:35 is episkiasei in the Greek, the same term used to describe the glory cloud’s (shekinah) descent on the ark of the Covenant. We both know what happened to Uzziah when he touched the ark to prevent it from toppling. Nothing profane must mingle with what is holy. Mary’s womb served as a type of sacred vessel which contained the Word of God become flesh. The seed of Joseph, tainted by original sin, would have desecrated the sacred tabernacle of Mary’s womb. As long as you read the Scriptures in a purely literal-historical sense, your understanding of “the deeds wrought by God” (Sacred Tradition) will remain shallow and deficient.

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[Mickey]

Prove me wrong.

It is not necessary. You are doing a great job of that on your own.

 

[rev_kevin]

It is not necessary. You are doing a great job of that on your own.

Can’t prove it can ya, because I never said it. I get a rash of****for something I never said but gegvalc get nothing for saying Mary being 14 lied about being pregnant and they get is a sad face???

 

[rev_kevin]

James, Jude, and Joseph were cousins of Jesus, sons of “the other mary”, Joseph not included as an apostle. Do you honestly believe that Jesus had uterine brothers, cousins, and apostles all with the same names? That’s a remarkable coincidence, don’t you think?

No not so remarkable. Common names back then. I didn’t say I believe he had brothers and sisters but it can be possible.Its called open mindness.

Well, I’m mentioning it, since it’s something one should consider.

Ok if you want to but I never mentioned it so i’m not going to discuss it.

The early Church Fathers Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus referred to Mary as “the Virgin” in their writings. Obviously they were aware that Mary had no other children. Why should I accept the “opinions” of someone who is severed from the historic Apostolic faith 1900 years later?

Why not, you believe the early church fathers justin martyr, irenaeus and hippolytus, she was aa virgin when jesus was concieved yes but they were aware that mary had no other children how were they aware who told them or did they interperate that way.

Scripture must be interpreted in light of apostolic Sacred Tradition, from whence the written Word of God proceeds.

Paul’s instructions (not commands) to the Corinthians apply to “ordinary” married couples. I made it clear in my last reply that Mary had already miraculously conceived and borne a divine Son of another Person while she and Joseph were betrothed. By virtue of the Incarnation, Mary now belonged to God as his bride. Her body was his. The word “overshadow” in Luke 1:35 is episkiasei in the Greek, the same term used to describe the glory cloud’s (shekinah) descent on the ark of the Covenant. We both know what happened to Uzziah when he touched the ark to prevent it from toppling. Nothing profane must mingle with what is holy. Mary’s womb served as a type of sacred vessel which contained the Word of God become flesh. The seed of Joseph, tainted by original sin, would have desecrated the sacred tabernacle of Mary’s womb. As long as you read the Scriptures in a purely literal-historical sense, your understanding of “the deeds wrought by God” (Sacred Tradition) will remain shallow and deficient.

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[murtad]

The spoken Tradition (not to be confused with customs or disciplines) is alongside scripture the word of God. So that’s why Paul tells us to hold onto both. It’s the word of God - not the word of man.

The Word of God is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible is NOT the Word of God. It is a collection of books of the New Testament and Old Testament, which were written by fallible men on their own free will and therefore the Bible is errant and not suitable for guidance. We Catholics consider the Church our infallible guide since to us, the Church is the Vatican, who is the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. We Catholics can be proud to boast that we are still united as we do not follow Bible, while the Protestants who followed the Bible are divided into secretarian and schismatic bodies, which St Augustine of blessed memory refers as “dead bodies”.

When the heretics call the Bible as “The Word of God” they commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, who is the Church, the Vatican, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. For if a person were to declare the Bible the Word of God, then they also declare the same Bible was crucified on Good Friday!

I believe the Church using oral tradition and guided by the Holy Spirit gave us the contents page. They selected books that didn’t contradict the oral tradition.

And by the Church, we Catholics mean the Holy Spirit, the Vatican, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. The Vatican is the Church nation, the only State which is ruled by the Holy Spirit, which the Holy Bible tells us the gates of hades will never prevail against. It is the Catholic equivalent to Jerusalem (in Israel) or Makkah (in Saudi).

 

[Canto]

The Word of God is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible is NOT the Word of God. It is a collection of books of the New Testament and Old Testament, which were written by fallible men on their own free will and therefore the Bible is errant and not suitable for guidance. We Catholics consider the Church our infallible guide since to us, the Church is the Vatican, who is the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. We Catholics can be proud to boast that we are still united as we do not follow Bible, while the Protestants who followed the Bible are divided into secretarian and schismatic bodies, which St Augustine of blessed memory refers as “dead bodies”.

When the heretics call the Bible as “The Word of God” they commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, who is the Church, the Vatican, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. For if a person were to declare the Bible the Word of God, then they also declare the same Bible was crucified on Good Friday!

And the Word [God] was made flesh. So Jesus is God in the flesh, the 2nd person in the Trinity, fully human and fully divine.

What Jesus said and taught is contained in the Bible and oral Tradition, thus is it his word (lower case w) or words.

Obvisouly the Bible is not the Word (capital w)

Those who wrote the Bible were falible (except for Peter in certain circumstances) but were guided by the Spirit.

Protestants condemn tradition as the word of men
I argue Catholic tradition is the word(s) [lower case] of God

 

[guanophore]

No listen I never said anything about cousins or the cross. How is that loosing a debate? We can’t debate something I never said. If you so smart then show me were I said it Micky. Prove yourself. Prove me wrong. You can’t because its not true.

It is an article of FAITH rev kev, handed down to us from the Apostles. Like most other articles of faith, such as the hypostatic union, the Trinity, and the canon of Scripture, it is not really subject to proof. God’s revelation of HImself is far above our meagre human achievement of “proofs”.

Part of the problem here is that you will not look at all the evidence. The issue about cousins and the cross are part of the reflection in NT of the Apostolic Teaching that Mary was ever virgin. If you are not willing to look at the evidence, of course nothing could be “proven” to you.

 

[guanophore]

Did Thomas’ doubting cause him to abandon the disposit of faith. After he doubted Jesus, the Lord himself and was still a Apostle. Why are you any different.

No, I think, like you, he never fully received it yet. If he had, he would not have had doubt!

I do not understand the question about why I am different? Different than Thomas? I am not an apostle!

If it lacks all detail and you really can’t prove your point, then how do you know it right.

I think you did not read my post. I think there are enough details there to make it clear that the persons named are not the offspring of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Perhaps you are not willing to consider this evidence, because you prefer to cling to the modern innovations of American Evangelical thought?

I know what is right because I accept the Source. Jesus committed the Truth to HIs Apostles, and they to the Church. I have received this One Divine Deposit of Faith. That is how I know that what you assert is “a different gospel” than what was delivered by the Apostles.

Because they said so. Do you always believe what people tell you to believe.

You do not know me, so it is impossible for you to know how erroneous this statement is.

I believe that Jesus was able to keep HIs promise to prevent the gates of hell from prevailing against the Church (teaching of error) and that He could, and did, lead them into “all truth”. I believe what Jesus promises because He has proved HImself trustworthy to me. I cannot “prove” this to you.

Don’t you not want solid proof. If you were accused of a wrong doing and they didn’t have hard proof against you but they say they did, will you accept that at the expence of your good name. Will you not want solid proof of the aligations against you. Remember Thomas.

Sure! I found my proof when I studied the history of the Christian Church. I did this during my three year stint in a Protestant Evangelical Seminary, in a course taught by an anti-Catholic on historical theology.

 

[Janet1983]

The Word of God is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible is NOT the Word of God. It is a collection of books of the New Testament and Old Testament, which were written by fallible men on their own free will and therefore the Bible is errant and not suitable for guidance. We Catholics consider the Church our infallible guide since to us, the Church is the Vatican, who is the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. We Catholics can be proud to boast that we are still united as we do not follow Bible, while the Protestants who followed the Bible are divided into secretarian and schismatic bodies, which St Augustine of blessed memory refers as “dead bodies”.

When the heretics call the Bible as “The Word of God” they commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, who is the Church, the Vatican, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. For if a person were to declare the Bible the Word of God, then they also declare the same Bible was crucified on Good Friday!

And by the Church, we Catholics mean the Holy Spirit, the Vatican, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. The Vatican is the Church nation, the only State which is ruled by the Holy Spirit, which the Holy Bible tells us the gates of hades will never prevail against. It is the Catholic equivalent to Jerusalem (in Israel) or Makkah (in Saudi).

The Bible is very much so the infallible Word of God.

GOD:

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Mark 7:13 (Context)

GOD:

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
John 10:35 (Context)

Jesus said the scriptures were the word of God and they are. They are the infallible Word of God and all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

 

[Bill_Pick]

The Bible was not available to indivual believers until the 15 Century,and the doctrine of SS did not exist prior to the 14 century,the doctrine of SS had its source on Luther own emotional problems, that why the Bible tells you the Church is the Pallar of Truth

 

[rev_kevin]

I figured it out. If your not Catholic and your beliefs are not their beliefs you are automaticlly wrong. I have agreed with them on some things but was still wrong.
Why ask questions like “the not so virgin Mary” if you don’t want other views. Could it be because some of you get pleasure out of putting others down because they don’t agree with your views. If you don’t want the opions of other people who are not Catholic then why ask the question. Go ahead and make lude, rude, hateful, comments about this. It wouldn’t be the first time. So go ahead and say all your nasty comments abut my post. I don’t care. That’s what ya’ll are best at.

 

[Bill_Pick]

rev What problem do you have with my post tell me and we can talk about it and stop being so touch and stop bi%c%in#

 

[rev_kevin]

rev What problem do you have with my post tell me and we can talk about it and stop being so touch and stop bi%c%in#

Did I say anything about your posts? Watch your temper you shouldn’t be using words like that. I believe my last posting had nothing to do with you now did it. I just asked a simple question. Your upset because I figured it out. No matter what you say, your wrong, even when you agree they will nitpick at your words and find something wrong. Example: Joel Osteen I agreed I don’t like his preaching but was that good, NO they went off the subjest and started on me because I’m ordained. See attack, attack attack even when you agree. So ya I might have a little problem.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Did I say anything about your posts? Watch your temper you shouldn’t be using words like that. I believe my last posting had nothing to do with you now did it. I just asked a simple question. Your upset because I figured it out. No matter what you say, your wrong, even when you agree they will nitpick at your words and find something wrong. Example: Joel Osteen I agreed I don’t like his preaching but was that good, NO they went off the subjest and started on me because I’m ordained. See attack, attack attack even when you agree. So ya I might have a little problem.

God Bless the people you are to help if you are a rev You are the biggelt bady we have had on this board, go back and read ALL your post and you will never see any crying like you,God bless you and all the people you are to helpif you are a rev

 

[Janet1983]

God Bless the people you are to help if you are a rev You are the biggelt bady we have had on this board, go back and read ALL your post and you will never see any crying like you,God bless you and all the people you are to helpif you are a rev

Will you cut it out now? Let’s get back to the topic and refrain from personal insults like calling someone names…

 

[guanophore]

The Bible is very much so the infallible Word of God.

This false statement is one of the sequalae of the Reformed heresy of Sola Scriptura. You see, the Bible, which is most definitely the Word of God, cannot be “infallible”. The quality of fallibility belongs only to persons, not writing, Holy though it may be. Since the words do not “act” on their own, they cannot be infallible. That is why Scripture is called inspired, and inerrant, rather than infallible.

Jesus said the scriptures were the word of God and they are. They are the infallible Word of God and all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

No, Scripture is “profitable” for those activities which God gave to the Church. These are duties assigned to persons, not books. Scripture is, indeed, profitable when a shepherd is reproving a member of his flock, corrrecting people when they err, and giving instruction in righteousness. But scripture does not do all these things. People do these things. Scripture is profitable in the duties of teaching and shepherding that belong to the Church.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Will you cut it out now? Let’s get back to the topic and refrain from personal insults like calling someone names…

Janet This is between me and the rev and I thank you to stay out of this thank you and have a good night
PS did you read all the post or did you just jump in running your mouth.sorry but this is not for you