Posted on 12/17/2014 11:31:24 AM PST by millegan
But this article isn’t about the whole apparition story so much as it is about the tilma, Juan Diego’s cloak, on which the image of the Blessed Mother was imprinted. In the centuries following the event, some amazing and unexplainable qualities have been discovered about it.
Here’s four (literally) awesome facts about the tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe:
(Excerpt) Read more at churchpop.com ...
We have a problem because it’s not true. :)
People disagree on what the bible says, what it means. We’re not going to change that. It’s happened for a long time.
I think our fundamental disagreement is over authority. I think for you it is each individual, what each says the bible says and means. This is where we disagree. I think that fails in practice and is unbiblical. :)
I appreciate disagreeing without being disagreeable and appreciate your courtesy. I don’t want to hijack this thread over sola scriptura though.
I have largely avoided the Religion Forum for years and I will not be debating the Catholic v. Protestant beliefs on this subject.
However, I would like to point out one thing for consideration:
There was NOTHING "normal" about Mary and Joseph's marriage. The Holy Family WAS NOT a "normal" family, they the most decidedly abnormal family imaginable. When God sends angels to inform you that your Child will be the Son of God, EVERY pretense of normalcy is pushed aside. All good parents realize their responsibilities to their children's well-being, but no parents have ever had this responsibility on the level of Mary and Joseph. I cannot begin to fathom how incredible it was to be tasked with this, but I would imagine that any presuppositions about what a marriage should be like would be pushed aside because when what could possibly be more important than actually raising God Incarnate?
Since the Lord commands us to be fruitful and multiply, it is not unreasonable to conclude that Mary and Joseph did just that.
Catholic families in general would be great examples of multiplying. :)
But, there are exceptions to every rule:
http://biblehub.com/matthew/19-12.htm
**Was Mary born sinless?**
No.
“..God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and FOR sin, condemned sin in the flesh’. Rom. 8:3
God “hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” 2Cor. 5:21
Jesus Christ took on your sin, my sin, and......even Mary’s sin.
**The Bible does mention that Jesus had brothers and sisters.**
“And when he was come into his OWN COUNTRY, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were ASTONISHED, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the CARPENTER’S son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethern,
James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not ALL with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?” Matt. 13:54-56
His OWN country. They were sure that they knew his history, his (step)father, mother, and siblings. They were ASTONISHED! How could he be so different, so much wiser, and mightier than his own brothers and sisters? The locals had known them for years.
And why did Mary fail to notice the 12 yr old Jesus missing from the caravan, while traveling one whole DAY home from Jerusalem?
The answer is easy. Mary had her hands full with her younger children. To paint her as having no other children under those circumstances, is making her look like a VERY poor mother.
**I don’t know why some people have a problem with this.**
Pride. Vain tradition. And,...as with the silversmiths in Ephesus, there’s been a lot of money made in selling images of Mary.
Here are some thoughts on the subject from early Christians:
http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_immaculate_conception.htm
What is truth?
/sarc
Yep.
She was NOT born sinless, and she sinned on earth, as well.
Thanks for your post!
I stopped looking at the old “Early Church Fathers” card trick a LOOOOOONNG time ago.
Through the power of God, the Blessed Virgin Mary WAS born sinless.
**I stopped looking at the old “Early Church Fathers” card trick a LOOOOOONNG time ago**
Your loss.
I first learned that Jesus had brothers and sisters in a bible study class taught at a Catholic church by a Catholic priest. To this day I am grateful that priest taught the Bible as it is written and did not make up things along the way.
The Bible does mention the fact that Mary was married to Joseph and that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Physical intimacy between a husband and a wife is a gift from God and there is no reason to believe this was denied to Mary and Joseph. The Bible mentions that Mary was a virgin at the time Jesus was conceived, but does not say she remained a virgin her entire life and that she did not consummate her marriage with Joseph. Nor does the Bible mention any of the circumstances surrounding Mary’s own birth or mention the possibility that she was conceived of an Immaculate Conception herself.
The notion that Mary and Joseph shared physical intimacy as husband and wife and that other children followed Jesus’s birth appears to be in accordance with everything written in the New Testament and does not take anything away from Joseph, Mary, or Jesus.
Catholics are much better than Muslims.
This topic is debated EVERY SINGLE DAY on FR, there's nothing I can add to it.
I was merely pointing out the inherent flaw in thinking that Mary and Joseph had a "normal" marriage.
There is nothing "normal" about having angels appear to tell someone that they will bear the Son of God.
Keep in mind that the "normal" reaction of someone in Joseph's situation would have been to have Mary stoned to death.
When an angel tells you to leave the country in the middle of the night and stay away until you are told to return and you recognize the unprecedented magnitude of what you've been tasked with, it would seem that everything else, including sex, would lose priority.
Additionally, there is NOTHING in Catholic teaching that says that Joseph didn't have children from a previous marriage.
NOWHERE in the Bible does it say anyone other than our Lord was born to Mary. Neither James nor Jude identify themselves as brothers of Jesus, though Jude DOES say he is the brother of James. It would make no sense to entrust Mary's care to John after the Crucifixion if she had other sons.
Your analysis and speculation could be quite correct. But it just that.
But there is also a very strong possibility that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage and other children followed. I don’t why there is such strong resistance to this possibility.
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.