Beyond here be DRAGONS!!
Posted on 02/02/2017 5:24:02 PM PST by markomalley
She has 180,000 followers on Twitter, became a daytime TV star with a cooking show sharing traditional convent recipes and waded into local politics speaking out in support of Catalan independence.
But the latest public declarations from the 51-year-old Dominican nun have provoked a stern telling off by the Catholic Church.
Her unlikely appearance on a chat show at the weekend to talk about sex led to her revealing that she didn’t really believe in one of the tenets of the Roman Catholic faith – that Mary, mother of Jesus, was a virgin.
"I think that Mary was in love with Joseph and that they were a normal couple, and the normal thing is to have sex,” the nun who was born in Argentina before moving to a Catalan convent 26 years ago told Risto Mejideon on the Cuatro show Chester in Love.
"It’s hard to believe and to take in,” she added. "We’ve stuck with rules that we have invented without reaching the true message.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thelocal.es ...
>>>We don’t know how far Mary and Joseph were into their “betrothal” period - which was usually one year before consummation. My thinking is the angel Gabriel’s words were that the conception was imminent which would cause Mary to ask her question about not “knowing” (in the Biblical sense) a man. I also believe religious Jews would be familiar with Isaiah’s prophecy that a “virgin will conceive and bear a son and call his name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14).
Me: There is no particular indication that the birth is imminent in the Angel’s words.
HE... wink-wink
SOMEone to bring him a beer and make him a sandwich?
Unlike FR; too much torment will earn a ZOT!
I'd hate to imagine what a HOLY zot from Jesus would getcha!
But MORMONism has that answer...
Oh; wait...
Well; they teased Jesus back in the day and then
John 20:30-31
30. Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
31. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
If Rome were televising a horse race; it would pan the crowds, to see the reactions; rather than show the horses charging around the track.
"Hey Joe!
How can I please you tonight?"
Well; I don't want to stretch what is found in the bible; but...
Luke 2:23 KJV
(As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)
The emperor wears no clothes!
It was to MARY!
She was betrothed and she KNEW that very soon she WOULD 'know a man'!
And if they have an agreement made beforehand, a holy man like Joseph will probably not respond in the way you seem to think inevitable. We are human beings, after all; we can make decisions and stick to them.
>>>The emperor wears no clothes!
Do you think your response is evangelical or even polite? Do you think hurling imprecations about my beliefs is going to encourage me to listen to you? Is this the way you treat people who don’t believe as you do irl?
If Mary were planning to consummate her marriage to Joseoh, why did she ask how it could be that she would bear a child?
Don’t understand the logic of this. Are you saying that a translation of Greek from a word with several meanings is somehow akin to believing there are dragons? This has no logic behind it, sorry. Our faith is not on a Darwinian timeline - that is fatal to it. The insistence that Mary is just another woman and had a family had no basis until people just read translations and ignored thoughtful and comprehensive scholarship. Of course, the Orthodox church (I see a lot of Catholic references here, it is way beyond that) knows these are not Mary’s children. Just one example, there same word is used to reference Herod’s “brothers” in translations but we know from history that these were his cousins. Anyway, God Bless and remember “All generation will call me blessed.” We all know there are no wasted words in the Gospels!
As you must know that sparse ECF testimony is a weak case and part of an ongoing active debate and your church does not seem to agree with you preference. Moreover, having seen a Hebrew Matthew and having a late extant Hebrew Matthew does not mean that the latter is the same as the former in all texts (some think it likely that it was taken by the Ebionites and textually corrupted in the late second century with many additions, deletions, and changes), nor that the Greek is a translation of it, which is denied by many or debatable , that it thus is determinitive over the Greek (which apparently means we have some other problems), which is what God choose to preserve. Nor does it mean the word at issue was normally used the way you need to be used, nor that it is used that way in Mt. 1:25. And as you must prove the exception to the norm, which the Spirit can be expected to note, then the burden is upon you to prove it.
And it do not see the Greek word used in Mt. 1:25 among the Greek Equivalent Words I see listed for the Hebrew in 2 Samuel 6:23 ("Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death").
I am confident that you will not find anyone before Erasmus calling Jerome and Origen liars on this point.
You may be confident, but there were certainly some sharp disagreements, as there is over what such meant today. And Jerome can be shown to have engaged in spurious wresting of Scripture, and Origen going off the rails.
Given the importance placed upon Scripture, even by Catholics,
Meaning it is only of secondary importance at best, church law being supreme, and under which tradition is chosen over Scripture if needed.
I will grant you that being able to cite a verse from Matthew that said “composed originally in Greek,” you would have a very good case. If, however, you are going to go Sola Scriptura, as you seem to have done, you have no case, unless I missed a verse somewhere.
To the contrary, even if a Hebrew Matthew was the original, that still does not make the Hebrew word translated “until” to normally denote a continued state, nor does the Greek.
And as said again and again, you are arguing for an exception to the norm, linguistically and as concerns how marriage is described, and as concerns how the Holy Spirit deals with such notable exceptions to the norm among even lesser characters He mentions.
He is careful to note in Scripture that David did not sexual know Abishag, nor Michal after her transgression, and that Joseph did not sexual know Mary till after she brought forth here first born son, but rather than stating likewise for even more important person (if Catholicism is to be believed), then the Spirit did not do so, and if anything, He chose to indicate that Mary' special status did not continue.
>So it seems you base your case upon a word that is not normally used as you need it to be used, in a disputed gospel that God did not preserve like the Greek, and a copy that is of dubious integrity, while even it all your presuppositions are true, it does not mean this is how the word is used in Mt. 1:25, all of which is what you need to prove an exception to the norm and justify it as required belief. Thus you who have no real case based upon what we know to be Scripture.
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.