Posted on 06/25/2015 1:13:01 PM PDT by RnMomof7
Now you’ve moved the goal posts. It went from being the “unanimous” consent of the ECFs, down to a broad consensus. Is this 80%? 75%? 51%?
Imagine this: You are at a bridal shower for a friend and somebody remarks to the bride, “You are going to have such adorable kids!” Everybody laughs, but the bride draws back in astonishment and says, “But...but...how shall this be? I know not man.” **Huh?** For a woman who is engaged to be married, there are only two possible explanations for such a reaction: either she has no idea where babies come from—--or she has every intention of remaining a virgin after marriage.
GOOD GRIEF THE IGNORANCE OF THE WORD! Forgive my caps on this, but this is utterly ridiculus and has been pointed out to you on several occasions by me. This is what is frustrating. After having been shown the Greek behind this you continue to post this falsity. I expect better from you.
The Greek indicates she had not had sex with anyone at the time. Nothing in the Greek indicates what catholics are suggesting. The Greek for “know” means to have intimate knowledge/contact through personal experience….in other words….sexual intercourse.
Why else would Mary be astonished? She’s a woman betrothed to Joseph, she knows about the birds and the bees. Yet she reacts with amazement at the news that she, a woman betrothed, will bear a son.
She’s astonished in that she knows she hasn’t had intercourse with anyone.
Notice that the angel does not say “You are pregnant.” He says “You will conceive in your womb and bear a son” (Luke 1:31). This is a promise that has been made to other women in Jewish history such as Sarah and Hannah. All of them understand the promise to mean, “You and your husband will conceive a child.” So why should the same promise astonish Mary, a young woman who also plans to marry—--unless she had already decided to remain a virgin throughout her life?
False equivalence and false assumption on the part of the catholic. Again, there is NOTHING in the text indicating Mary had decided to remain a virgin. The texts show she and Joseph did have intercourse, much to the chagrin of catholics everywhere. Sarah was already married and had been having sex with Abraham in trying to have a child.
This idea that Mary was NOT ever-virgin, is a Renaissance-era innovation.
The Greek texts say otherwise. Paul says otherwise when he noted he met James, the Lord’s brother.
Yet you posted.
OK, I can understand your point. If that is what you really think, then move on, like you said yourself.
Yes, James, the half brother of Jesus, the natural son of Mary and Joseph, was the leader of the Jerusalem church, not Peter. Don't forget Jude, another half brother of Jesus, who wrote the book of Jude. I wonder what the names of the half sisters of Jesus were? We just don't know. I hope all the half brothers and half sisters of Jesus became true Christians, like James and Jude did. We just don't know for sure. 😇
I can’t answer that, because I don’t know.
Regarding your points, I don’t know of whom you are speaking. Who are the banned people, etc.?
Mary and Joseph must just be some weird anomaly.
As a former Protestant, I’ve yet to see one. Peace be with you.
And yet you've read up to reply 53 and have commented.
Dang!
3 of us noticed this!
We know Jews highly valued genealogy, and made a point of recording it (So and so begat...). We also know the only person “born of Mary” (Matthew 1:18) was Jesus. We also know that John the Baptist was the son of Elizabeth “she bore a son” (Luke 1:57).
No place else in Scripture does it say Mary bore other children, nor does it say other children were “born of” Mary.
Additionally, should Jesus had siblings born of Mary, would they not have likely had children and so on? However, we don’t see that, either in the Bible, or other accounts. The Bible appears to indicate the line of both Joseph and Mary stop at Jesus (and John the Baptist, respectively). If it didn’t, when did it? Where were they at Pentecost, the crucifixion, or other key moments in His ministry?
It is my personal opinion there were no other children or half-siblings. I also believe the Apostles had no children, though we know Peter was/had been married.
Scripture doesn't have to say the exact words "Mary bore...." as the text tells us she and Joseph had other kids.
Matthew 13:55 gives us the names of His brothers.
Paul noted in Gal 1:19 that James was the brother of Christ.
Your personal opinion is at odds with the Word.
I don't think we know that at all. They are named in Mattew 13:55. I am not into Greek, but from what I understand, the word for physical brother was used for them. The word for cousin was not used. I also believe that Adam and Eve had a whole huge bunch of kids. Only a few are named, because the Bible was not written to give a blow by blow description of history, nor was it written for our curiosity. It was written, to give us the information necessary, to respond to the gospel. I believe Mary was a sinner, saved by grace, just like all who are saved by grace. She does not occupy a place in Heaven higher than anyone else. If others want to believe something different, so be it. I just don't accept it myself.
The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin
You can run all you want, but you can’t hide. The truth is that your religion says that sex between a husband and wife (Joseph and Mary) is sin. Yet it also suggest to propagate and fill the earth as Scripture says. Oh until your latest pope and now it’s been changed to NOT to breed like rabbits. Still your religion wants you to have children, so it wants you to sin so you stay indebted to it for salvation. Just how evil can you get? Stay tuned I’m sure it will get even more sinful. Oh wait news flash the pope’s science adviser worships gaia yep it just got worst!
I remember that comment, and I also remember going much further back than that that another RC commented that sex without the intent of pregnancy is the cause of the moral decline in this country.
I remember that discussion because someone brought up people who were infertile and those couples where they wife as past menopause, making them contributing to the moral decline in this country because they were engaging in sex knowing there was no chance for pro-creation.
You know what, Mrs Don-o?
Much as I like you and respect you, that fall back line of *Wellllll, it’s not infallible teaching of the church* has WAAAAAAAYYYYYY outlived its usefulness, and honestly, I expect better out of you in the way of discussion.
For one thing, were weren’t talking about *official* teaching of the Catholic church. I was addressing the attitude of many Catholics.
For another, the Church has more than contributed to that kind of thinking, maybe not intentionally, since it likes lots of little Catholics, but in portraying celibacy as a superior and more honorable calling for one’s life, it has most certainly presented the view that sex is someone unworthy or beneath someone.
Scripture clearly states that Joseph did not know his wife until AFTER she gave birth, and the writers of the Gospels name Jesus' brothers by name.
So, yes, the "church" for 15 centuries was wrong in claiming she was perpetually virgin. I don't care about their pedigree, or claimed intellectual prowess.
Scripture states otherwise.
Yeah?
Says you.
Tell that to my kids......
The Ark is JESUS, not Mary.
The ark carried the Shekinah glory, not God in physical form. What carried the Shekinah glory was Jesus' body.
Mary was not untouchable. There's not one shred of evidence for support of that in Scripture.
Did people die when they touched Mary? How did her mother not die then, if touching Mary resulted in death?
How did people not die when Jesus touched them?
Was Mary more holy than Jesus, that people could touch God Incarnate and not die, but would die if they touched Mary?
Daniel said it right. Today’s Catholics are not going to come right and say that sex in marriage is evil. They are too sophisticated to do that. When I was a catholic, it wasn’t talked about much either. My parents still haven’t told me about the birds and the bees, and they are both deceased. I had to find out in the locker room of my Catholic school. It was like the elephant in the room. Everyone knew it was there, but no one wanted to talk about it. The implication that doing the “evil deed” was somehow less than ideal, was clearly there, or at least, that is the message that I got out of it. If someone thinks it is less than ideal, instead of the most beautiful gift God ever gave mankind, for use here on earth (notice I said for use here on earth) then I can imagine some might think it is bad, and others may not. I am sure each person has their own idea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.