Posted on 03/26/2015 11:36:04 AM PDT by RnMomof7
You are suffering a logical fallacy. Just because it doesn’t say Mary had no other children is NOT proof she did.
The remainder of your cut and paste were refuted centuries ago. I would be happy to include my own cut and paste, demonstrating a position contrary to yours.
Again, this argument is an ancient heresy.
OK. I see your POV. Obviously we are talking about events that occurred over 2000 years ago, long before there was TV, radio, the modern day news media, internet, and other forms of modern communication. I simply assume that because Mary and Joseph were a married couple, they did the same things as other married couples do. Hard for me to imagine Joseph as a passive wallflower standing alone in a corner somewhere and sleeping in a separate bedroom. I get the impression it was a close and loving marriage. I have no problem believing the marriage was consummated after Jesus was born. I don’t know why others do.
Especially since God created sex as a gift to be enjoyed by a married couple.
There are Scriptural mandates to take care of in other in that manner. To do otherwise would be sinful.
The notions that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, as well as additional children (step or otherwise), were around and refuted in the 8th century.
But I do believe Jesus was her only child.
As for the perpetual virginity I have no idea.
Actually I do not choose to believe anything, I just see it the way I see it.
Thanks so much for your kind words. More of a wine drinker than a beer drinker these days . Goes hand in hand with my service as a Eucharistic Minister at my church.
The teaching of the Catholic Church is that there were no step children, or natural children, except for Jesus.
I have no problem believing the marriage was consummated after Jesus was born. I don’t know why others do.
I don`t know how old Joseph was but he is not mentioned after Jesus turned twelve was he? so this is something we can only guess at.
OK, we’ll do wine!
All true of course. We know next to nothing about Joseph. Little is said of him in the Bible just as little is said of Jesus’s childhood and early youth. Much more is known of contemporary Jewish society and family structure at that time. People were expected to be married and produce children. That was the norm, that was what expected. Priests in the Bible too, were married men with families. That was expected, that was the norm. You were considered an outcast if you were single, unless you had a contagious disease, such as leprosy and were excluded from the general population.
The teaching of the Catholic Church is that there were no step children, or natural children, except for Jesus.
It appears to me that the Catholics are so determined to prove the perpetual virginity theory and the protestants are determined to prove other wise, no scripture is even considered except to try to prove a point which the other side ignores .
It has got to the point that if Mary had only one child or not has nothing to do with it except to prove one side right and the other side wrong.
I can understand you point of view. However, the rejection of the Marian doctrine ultimately deny Christ.
If someone truly understand the Marian doctrines and rejects them, they will be rejecting Christ in His humanity and in His Divinity.
That said, many people don’t understand the Marian doctrines and their importance. For many, there is a superficial understanding. This incomplete understanding leads to disagreement, etc.
That was expected, that was the norm.
1 tim 3
4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way;
Yes precisely. In point of fact St. Paul thoroughly outlines a full job description for service in the clergy:
“This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of bishop, he desireth good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach. Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre, but patient, not a brawler, not covetous. One that ruleth his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity. For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”
1 Timothy 3:1-7
So there you have it. It doesn’t get any clearer than this. The full and complete job description for service in the clergy from St. Paul. Why would anyone want to change it?
If someone truly understand the Marian doctrines and rejects them, they will be rejecting Christ in His humanity and in His Divinity.
And this is not to bash the Catholic belief but I have not saw a hint of Marian doctrines in the scriptures.
If someone truly understand the Marian doctrines and rejects them, they will be rejecting Christ in His humanity and in His Divinity.
Mary shall be called blessed, that is scriptural but not sure about counting beads and the likes.
So there you have it. It doesn’t get any clearer than this.
No, no you don’t. The things you mocked are easy to research for “loyal and faithful” Catholics. If you think those things are “made up” you don’t belong in the Catholic Church and you certainly don’t know the Faith.
"This forum, on the other hand, has a paucity of such noble souls among the Protestant population, and it has a startlingly large population of anti-Catholic-Church Protestants whose commentary ranges from the hostile to the disingenuous to the mendacious;"
Was is the reason I chose redundancy
But I see I was mistaken ... you equate them both the same.
Gonn'a go start my pepper pots, now .... Last week of march
the Roman Catholic cult has taken that to an extreme and the heresy is in the inconsistent UNScriptural claims of Rome!
The refutations that you may paste can only come from within the cult's logic (illogic!)! Scripture does not refute it! Your entire cult is based on assumption and as we all know you can break down "assume"...
I appreciate your point of view and your amiable delivery!
My response would be that Scripture isn’t plain (2Peter 3:16). Consider how many different interpretations are given by non-Catholics on John 6, and why it doesn’t mean what it says.
Since I am not learned in ancient Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, or the original languages of the books of the Bible, I have to rely not only upon an interpreter, but also those who can fully explain the meaning of the different books, and their context.
This is not to diminish anybody reading the Bible, hardly. Many great truths can come of a “plain” reading. However, many of the truths are far deeper. A simple example would be the Trinity. That word is never used, but the concept is, on several occasions.
Finally, it was the Catholic Church who decided, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the canon of Scripture. While the Old Testament was already in use, the books of the New Testament came AFTER the organization of the Church.
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.