Would it really matter or change anything if Joseph & Mary had other children?

[BroomWagon]

And…so? You’re point is?

And so! You said they were creative interpretations. Doesn’t appear that way at all.

Inspired by the truth.

 

[Elsa1]

Okay, inspired. Who told it was inspired? The Church. So why do you reject the same Church’s teaching on the PV?

No one told me it was inspired. I interpret the scriptures on my own and have come to believe that there is a mystical element to their creation. I don’t necessarily say that all books of Bible fall into that category and much of it is very obviously metaphore and myth.
I say that I accept it as the inspired word of God because, frankly, I like the thought that the mystical God published a helluva good book!

I also believe many, many other texts are equally inspired. The Bible is not the only one.

I don’t adhere to any Catholic teachings that I do not interprete for myself as true and good. Many of Christ’s own statements I interpret vastly differently than whatyou have accepted based on what the Bishops have toldyou to accept. I think for myself. I also accept as true and good the teachings of many other faiths. Shocking!!!

As for the notion of perpetual virginity, I don’t reject it. I simply have no way to know that is is factual. Neither do you. In any case, I find it irrelevent in the scheme of things.

 

[Elsa1]

And so! You said they were creative interpretations. Doesn’t appear that way at all.

Inspired by the truth.

I’m sorry, but your reference to Islam in this context makes no sense to me at all. Are you saying that because Mohammed put the immaculate conception into the Koran in the 7th century that that validates the immaculate conception doctrine of the 5th century Church?

 

[zz912]

No one told me it was inspired. I interpret the scriptures on my own and have come to believe that there is a mystical element to their creation. I don’t necessarily say that all books of Bible fall into that category and much of it is very obviously metaphore and myth.
I say that I accept it as the inspired word of God because, frankly, I like the thought that the mystical God published a helluva good book!

I also believe many, many other texts are equally inspired. The Bible is not the only one.

I don’t adhere to any Catholic teachings that I do not interprete for myself as true and good. Many of Christ’s own statements I interpret vastly differently than whatyou have accepted based on what the Bishops have toldyou to accept. I think for myself. I also accept as true and good the teachings of many other faiths. Shocking!!!

As for the notion of perpetual virginity, I don’t reject it. I simply have no way to know that is is factual. Neither do you. In any case, I find it irrelevent in the scheme of things.

Well unless you claim infallibility for yourself, then this is all based upon your personal opinion. That is a mighty big wager you place to set your eternal soul on your own personal opinion.

 

[Elsa1]

Well unless you claim infallibility for yourself, then this is all based upon your personal opinion. That is a mighty big wager you place to set your eternal soul on your own personal opinion.

Of course it is based on my personal opinion based on my interpretation of the texts. Which is incidently exactly and precisely the same system used by the church fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries. Except somewhare along the way they chose to call themselves infallible. Nice strategy for a multitude of things, but I dare say that a personal relationship with Christ was not the primary objective nor was the notion of harmony with other faiths. The very notion of infallibility is an arrogant, dangerous and utterly ridiculous position.

 

[BroomWagon]

I’m sorry, but your reference to Islam in this context makes no sense to me at all. Are you saying that because Mohammed put the immaculate conception into the Koran in the 7th century that that validates the immaculate conception doctrine of the 5th century Church?

No.

But you seem just as apt to be using “creative interpretations” to something that is shown to be believed historically for many years.

Why would Muhammad write such a thing? Because apparently the thought must have been established.

You say in one of your posts the Church Fathers may not have written of the Immaculate Conception in the early centuries but apparently they were developing such thought.

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

Ephraim the Syrian

staycatholic.com/ecf_immaculate_conception.htm

And many more references on that page.

 

[Elsa1]

No.

But you seem just as apt to be using “creative interpretations” to something that is shown to be believed historically for many years.

Why would Muhammad write such a thing? Because apparently the thought must have been established.

You say in one of your posts the Church Fathers may not have written of the Immaculate Conception in the early centuries but apparently they were developing such thought.

staycatholic.com/ecf_immaculate_conception.htm

And many more references on that page.

They may have been “developing such thought” over a keg of wine for all we know. In any case, you have said it but you don’t recognize it. Indeed, they “developed such thought”. Hence my statement on “creative interpretation” of the life and role of Mary.

I think I was quite clear in stating that these beliefs became dogma centuries and millenia later.

Mohammed wrote quite a few stories about Jesus. If I am not mistake, I believe that at least one of them may have come from the Gnostic gospels which also were widely believed. So, I presume that validates the Gnostic gospels then.

 

[Elsa1]

No.

But you seem just as apt to be using “creative interpretations” to something that is shown to be believed historically for many years.

Why would Muhammad write such a thing? Because apparently the thought must have been established.

You say in one of your posts the Church Fathers may not have written of the Immaculate Conception in the early centuries but apparently they were developing such thought.

staycatholic.com/ecf_immaculate_conception.htm

And many more references on that page.

By the way, you have the wrong date and verse attributed to Ephram the Syrian.

 

[panevino]

Eunuchs? Really? Obviously some people don’t know what’s physically involved to be a eunuch which can only be a male.

Hi irishgal and ianGE
I posted mat 19:12 (mistakenly noted as matt12:12) in response to this from ianGE

Originally Posted by IanGE
… It looks like Catholics are more concerned that the FALLIBLE church should not be caught out in a porky pie than Mary **AND Joseph enjoying life in the fulness of God’s wonderful gifts. If the Clergy are forced to give up on God’s particularly nice and HOLY gift that’s no justification **for putting the dampers on those who glady fulfil God’s order to “go forth and multiply”…

Mat19:saying, save [they] to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].

 

[BroomWagon]

They may have been “developing such thought” over a keg of wine for all we know. In any case, you have said it but you don’t recognize it. Indeed, they “developed such thought”. Hence my statement on “creative interpretation” of the life and role of Mary.

I think I was quite clear in stating that these beliefs became dogma centuries and millenia later.

Mohammed wrote quite a few stories about Jesus. If I am not mistake, I believe that at least one of them may have come from the Gnostic gospels which also were widely believed. So, I presume that validates the Gnostic gospels then.

“Developed such thought”, developed the idea, say what you want but that is Tradition. We are told in the Bible to likewise guard Tradition and the Spoken Word. The Gospels develop and Mark’s is reportedly the first but Luke and Matthew have similarities.

There is no Grave and are no relics for Mary, so many of us can assume she was indeed, Assumed into Heaven.

, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).

catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-tradition

So if one dismisses Tradition, they dismiss the Holy Word.

 

[BroomWagon]

They may have been “developing such thought” over a keg of wine for all we know. In any case, you have said it but you don’t recognize it. Indeed, they “developed such thought”. Hence my statement on “creative interpretation” of the life and role of Mary.

I think I was quite clear in stating that these beliefs became dogma centuries and millenia later.

Mohammed wrote quite a few stories about Jesus. If I am not mistake, I believe that at least one of them may have come from the Gnostic gospels which also were widely believed. So, I presume that validates the Gnostic gospels then.

By the way, “Developed” does not mean “Created”.

One could say the Trinity was a a thought developed but it is still clearly eternal truth.

 

[adrift]

But Mary agreed to marry Joseph: had she made a vow of virginity she would told Joseph to wind his neck in.
Mary said “I know no man”, poor innocent child, that was the truth. But Matthew says, "they had no union UNTIL AFTER her son was born. Either Matthew was telling a porky pie or church dogma is: make your mind up, folks, the Word of God or the doctrine of man.
In all of this, writers keep missing the difference between the Immaculate Conception of JESUS (which MUST be true or else throw away Christianity) and Mary’s “perpetual virginity”, which is truly unimportant,as Irishgal iterates (, except perhaps to celibates.
BTW What does OP stand for?

You have ignored the response to your Until. It doesn’t mean that they had sexual relations aftewards. At the time of the angel appearing to Mary, she was a married woman Matthew 1:24 It isn’t Matthew that is at fault but your faulty understanding. You are the one who is telling how did you say it “porky pie” Matthew was not trying to say they had sex after only emphasising that she was a virgin after all she was a married woman.

If you are going to interpret to mean that they had relations after Jesus was born than
You must believe that Michal had children after she died

“no one knew the location of [Moses’] grave until this present day” (Deut. 34:6).

You must know the location otherwise who is the “porky pie” Of course I know that you won’t address these wholes in your thought process:shrug:

 

[Elsa1]

“Developed such thought”, developed the idea, say what you want but that is Tradition. We are told in the Bible to likewise guard Tradition and the Spoken Word. The Gospels develop and Mark’s is reportedly the first but Luke and Matthew have similarities.

There is no Grave and are no relics for Mary, so many of us can assume she was indeed, Assumed into Heaven.

catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-tradition

So if one dismisses Tradition, they dismiss the Holy Word.

You have mis quoted and misused Thessalonians. This is exactly the kind of thing I have foudn over and over again with those who are the most zealous in their dogma. You have cherry picked ONE line from Thessalonians and utterly misused and misrepresented it. The “tradition” Paul speaks of is not the dogmas you want to attribute here. Here is the verse in full…

“In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching[a] you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9 We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

The tradition here is WORK! Oy Vey!

 

[Elsa1]

By the way, “Developed” does not mean “Created”.

One could say the Trinity was a a thought developed but it is still clearly eternal truth.

“Developed” most likely means, “elaborated” or “embellished”.

The Trinity is a beautiful concept and indeed was developed centuries after the resurrection. There are multiple versions of the concept of the Trinity.

 

[Erich]

“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?

“no one knew the location of [Moses’] grave until this present day” (Deut. 34:6). But we know that no one has known since that day either.

Sorry, but nothing can be proved from the use of the word “until” in Matthew 1:25.

Until means up to a certain point without indicating anything changes after that point.

Mary said “I know no man”, poor innocent child, that was the truth. But Matthew says, "they had no union UNTIL AFTER her son was born. Either Matthew was telling a porky pie or church dogma is: make your mind up, folks, the Word of God or the doctrine of man.

You’ve already been shown – TWICE – that “until” doesn’t mean what you think it means. Looks like Jesus was taling about you when He said (in Mark 8:18), “Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?”

 

[adrift]

You have mis quoted and misused Thessalonians. This is exactly the kind of thing I have foudn over and over again with those who are the most zealous in their dogma. You have cherry picked ONE line from Thessalonians and utterly misused and misrepresented it. The “tradition” Paul speaks of is not the dogmas you want to attribute here. Here is the verse in full…

“In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching[a] you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9 We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

The tradition here is WORK! Oy Vey!

This is actually from the third chapter and is hardly in full. This is a conclusion that the previous verses means work. It doesn’t state it as such. Tradition is spoken of as plural more than one. You have distilled it down to only one and I see the verse you quote to be another subject being addressed. He doesn’t enumerate the Traditions only saying that they should be followed either being given oral (something he preached) or written. Be careful who you accuse of misusing because I think you have.

 

[adrift]

You’ve already been shown – TWICE – that “until” doesn’t mean what you think it means. Looks like Jesus was taling about you when He said (in Mark 8:18), “Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?”

You are of course referring to IanGE as the you. who ignored the meaning of the word.

By the way it isn’t good form to use ad hominem attacks.

 

[Irishgal49]

Whether Dogma or tradition, does it matter? The reality is that the beliefs of the Church regarding Mary were pronounced hundreds of years after she died, starting in the 5th century! The status of Mary as the Immaculate Conception did not become a dogma until 1854. The Assumption of Mary became thus not until 1950!!!

These things that we call Marion dogmas are nothing more than interpretations on her life and status as the Mother of God by the fathers of the Church. They are not based on historical fact but rather creative interpretations and statements of her life and role in the life of her son.

Very true. But the question is would it change anything? Not do you believe it? We’ve drifted away from the OP’s question.

 

[Irishgal49]

This thread offers hilarious, tortuous answers in support of the “perpetual” virgin dogma. If you loved God, Jesus, Mary and had compassion for poor old Joseph you would be glad she was (as stated in the INFALLIBLE Gospels) a fruitful wife and mother. It looks like Catholics are more concerned that the FALLIBLE church should not be caught out in a porky pie than Mary AND Joseph enjoying life in the fulness of God’s wonderful gifts. If the Clergy are forced to give up on God’s particularly nice and HOLY gift that’s no justification for putting the dampers on those who glady fulfil God’s order to “go forth and multiply”
PS The Pope’s INFALLIBLE, Ex-cathedra statement was that Mary was the Immaculate Conception, NOT condemning her to life-long celibacy… If THAT conception is twisted to suggest it meant HER no-original-sin birth, then Jesus’ conception was not “immaculate”: now THAT IS heresy! You can’t have it both ways

Beatifully stated!

 

[adrift]

the dampers on those who glady fulfil God’s order to “go forth and multiply”
PS The Pope’s INFALLIBLE, Ex-cathedra statement was that Mary was the Immaculate Conception, NOT condemning her to life-long celibacy… If THAT conception is twisted to suggest it meant HER no-original-sin birth, then Jesus’ conception was not “immaculate”: now THAT IS heresy! You can’t have it both ways

Your rant is just that a rant that is incomprehensible at best. What is being twisted? The Immaculate Conception always referred to Mary’s conception in her mother’s womb. Because she was Immaculately conceived does not impact on the Virginal birth of Jesus. Just because you are wrong in what you believed to be the Immaculate Conception doesn’t mean the Church does. It does mean two things

1. You are ignorant in the terms the Church uses and don’t wish to learn.
2. I doubt if you were ever taught in the Catholic Faith. Everything you spout is from the Protestant point of view.