Posted on 12/09/2012 2:05:12 PM PST by Alex Murphy
Edited on 12/09/2012 5:21:35 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicbridge.com ...
Please read the entire article.
I believe that you are mistaken.
Why not post the entire article as a new thread?
Harley, please check the entire article. Only part of it was posted.
First off, that is not true. There is no typology of that explained in Scripture.
Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Using typology, when the Ark of the Old Covenant was touched — the person died.
Big dichotomy......
In the OT, a person died if they merely TOUCHED the ark, not if they touched the ark in a sexual way.
If the RCC is going to try to use that about Mary, they are being disingenuous to qualify it as sexual touching as opposed to ANY physical contact.
Therefore, if any physical contact with the ark killed someone on the spot, then any physical contact with Mary should have likewise killed people instantly, and yet her mother conceived and bore her without dying. And for her to grow up as an emotionally healthy child, she HAD to have had physical contact with other human beings.
Hmm, so if other normal sinful human beings touched her, why was she not contaminated with sin, just like Catholics claim would have happened to Jesus if Mary had sinned? If Mary needed to be sinless as to not contaminate Jesus, then why didn't Mary's mother have to be sinless so as not to contaminate Mary? And how far back does that go?
But if God were able to keep Mary sinless being conceived and born of a sinful mother, then He could have done the exact same thing for Jesus being conceived and carried by a sinful mother.
And if the unholy coming in contact with a holy thing drop dead from it, then why didn't all the people Jesus touched when He healed them and all the people who came in contact with him while the crowds pressed in around Him die on the spot too?
Do Catholics even think this stuff through, or just swallow it hook, line, and sinker?
*8”If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (Commentary on Matthew 1:4**
Worth repeating!
Please read the entire article. Only part of it was posted.
No one accepts the PoJ as inerrant, but is is not entirely in inaccurate and no one claims that it was not written in the second century when the practices, customs, and traditions of Judah and the Galilee would have been reflected in it. You are of course free to construct your understanding from what is not said in Scripture, but those of us who are sincere in understanding the meaning and intent of Scripture look the available historical and linguistic records for proper context.
Peace be with you
“No one accepts the PoJ as inerrant,...”
And yet is is cited in opposition to Holy Scripture. Odd that.
It is only selectively cited.....
Of course. /s
The Bible states that Mary had other children besides Jesus. That is sufficient for me. However Catholic tradition interprets the various phrases differently, brother = cousin, etc Surely if God wanted Mary to remain a virgin He could have done so. Who knows? We may never find out. Here are some key verses in question
Matthew 1:24-25 - “And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.”
Matthew 12:46-47 - “While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”
Matthew 13:55 - “Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”
Mark 6:2-3 - “And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”
John 2:12 - “After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days.”
Acts 1:14 - “These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.”
1 Cor. 9:4-5 - “Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?”
Gal. 1:19 - But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother.”
Why did you not post the whole article in this thread in the first place, instead of cherry picking? Its an excellent piece of apologetic work. I wish I had read it twenty years ago! Thank you for the original link, this is clearly one of the best summaries of the discussion I’ve ever read. If any Catholic ever had any doubts on this issue, this article puts those doubts away permanently.
If any other person of good will reads this article and refuses to grasp the obvious Truths there in, one might question their good will.
That Mary had other children is no less conjecture than that the brothers and sisters mentioned in Scripture were step brothers and sisters from Joesph's first marriage or that they were actually cousins.
Peace be with you.
My smart phone left out some words, it should have been: I do not know if Mary had bunches of kids, but she had some with her husband after Jesus
Did you hear that, Jean S?
It necessarily distracts from the worship of the ONE true G-d: YHvH. Seek YHvH in His WORD ! Since there is no scriptural support for this hypothetical construct,
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
one wonders why the need for this pagan goddess worship ?
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.