Prayers to Mary in concerning Matthew

[bella1955]

i just wanna say thank you to big norsk for responding to the op in a positive fashion.

How would you know he is speaking in a positive fashion?? your not Catholic??

 

[strayed]

yer kidding, right?

 

[thereselittleflower]

What the Catholics are talking about is that the words translated brothers and sisters can mean not just those we would refer to that way, but also cousins, so it is possible that the people there referenced were Jesus' cousins.

I think one must concede that it is indeed possible that Mary had no other children, the text just doesn't really say she did.

Now there is another area where there is dispute. That is that people argue that even though the text says that Joseph did not know her until Jesus was born. It of course doesn't really say that he knew her after Jesus was born so the arguement is that we again can't know that from scripture either.

However, it does say Joseph took Mary as his woman,

Actually no, it doesn't say that anywhere.

It says he took her into his house . . from that point she lived under his roof . . . .

and the normal meaning of that phrase does indeed include sex,

There is no such phrase in the bible.

hence the necessity of the following phrase that says not until Jesus was born.

hence no necessity at all can be mandated from a phrase that is not used in scripture.

Are there cases of sexless marriage among the Jews? Seems to be some, but quite rare and it would not be understood that way normally.

Of course there were . . . Moses from the time God called him had no relations with his wife . .

The Jewish men, when devoting themselves to the service of the study of Torah, abstained from their wives, sometimes for years.

There is clear precedent for a man abstaining from his wife while totally devoted to God and His Word.

Now here we have Jesus, the Word Incarnate living in Joseph's home . . Mary and Jospeh totally devoted themselves to the Word Incarnate. It would be in perfect keeping with established practice to abstaine from sex totally during such a time . .and since this lasted the rest of Joseph's life, abstaining from his wife would have been proper for the rest of his life too.

So the scriptural evidence would pretty clearly say that Mary and Joseph had sex, they may or may not have had children.

Not at all. . . . you have simply based this on assumptions that the scriptures use a phrase that is not there and a misunderstanding of Jewish pratice regarding devotion to Torah, The Word and what this would mean for 2 people, especially the man, devoted to the service The Living Word.

It only really becomes important at all when doctrines and dogmas are added that claim the Immaculate Conception and such other things about Mary.

Now we are entering into claims that you have no foundation for.

Where is the proof that such doctrines and dogmas were "added"?

Added to that a general belief by many that sex is always in some way sinful despite the scriptural proof that God declared the marriage bed undefiled.

This has absolutely nothing to do with any concept of sex being sinful . . . you are misrepresenting Catholic belief here.

It matters not a wit if Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after Jesus' birth.

Yes it does.

If it was important, it would have been spelled out.

Where?

Certainly if they did, and they probably did since that would indeed be represented by the idiom of taking Mary as his woman,

No such idiom exists in the bible . . . you are basing an entire argument on a non existant phrase.

it in no way defiled Mary, nor was it dishonoring to God.

Of course it would be dishonoring to God. Mary was taken as the spouse of the Holy Spirit. The Father of Jesus is none other than God Himself.

No self respecting devote Jewish man would ever consider having sexual relations with a woman claimed by God . . . To take what was consecrated to God and then use it for common use would have been abhorrant to the Jewish mind .. .

God passing through the birth canal to enter this world made this passageway consecrated to God.

Joseph would have never taken what was consecrated to God and used it in so common a manner as you claim.

To claim what you have claimed only results from a failure to understand what this would mean to someone such as Joseph . . . .

The Fulness of the Godhead bodily passed through this Virginal womb and birth canal to enter the world. . .

Tell me . . if the Fulness of the Godhead bodily passed through your wife's birth canal, would you ever feel right about using it for the common purpose of sex?

This is not a flippant question . . I want you to really think about this and give an honest, heart felt answer .. .

Now, put yourself in the position of a righteous, devout Jewish man who would never take for himself and his own use what the Fulness of the Godhead bodily has occupied andpassed through any more than he would have dared to enter the Holy of Holies in the Jewish Temple once occupied by the Shekinah glory of God.


Really think about this.

We should also probably add at this point that people were told not to abstain except for short periods of time and so on.

Umm . . no . . the practice of Jewish men was to abstain for as long as they were devoted to service of Torah, as long as that took, which could be years.

They didn't have the pre-occupation with sex that men in modern western cultuer have . . These men were pre-occupied with God. Abstaining from sex was not a problem.

But we see this false image of pietism built up around Mary and Joseph that seems to mostly come from gnostic writings and yet has stayed with large segments of the church.

Horsefeathers BN . . that is your own bias speaking and erroneous assumptions speaking. Nothing else . . It is uneducated and uninformed regarding what true pietism is in regards to Mary and Joseph. I am sorry, but this is true.

Your allegations that Catholic pietism regardng Mary and Joseph comes mostly from gnostic writings is especially ignorant and misinformed, and very insulting to Catholic in their faith.

The image of Joseph and indeed of Mary as some superhuman perfect servants of Jesus doesn't really fit scripture.

Nothing superhuman about it again, that is more prejudicial, uninformed bias speaking than anything else.

For instance, it is hard to believe that image and reconcile it with the fact that they lost Jesus when they went to Jerusalem and it was only after traveling a distance that they noticed the fact and returned to find him in the temple.

You have presented a false image of what Catholics believe, and then you are trying to reconcile that false image with scripture . .

Why don't you try developing a TRUE image of what Catholics believe first. . .

This is a red herring . .

And of course there is Jesus' first recorded miracle where Mary asked him for wine so the party wouldn't get over even though he admonishes her that she knows his time has not yet come.

Funny how Jesus did His first miracle at the request of His mother, isn't it?

Funny how His mother was so instrumental in the launching of His ministry . . . .

And what you call "admonishing" is just simply more of the same misinformed bias against Catholic teaching you have. . . .

There was nothing at all admonishing about Jesus' words to Mary there in any way shape or form.


That is simply your uninformed interpretation . . nothing more .. .

In any case, scripture tells us what we need to know,

Where does scripture tell us that scripture alone tells us what we need to know?

Joseph and Mary were man and wife, Mary was a virgin when Jesus was miraculously born. Beyond that, little is told us, and certainly nothing else about Mary should rise to the level of dogma that people must believe.

Marv

That is your opinion . .however, as I have shown above, it is poorly informed when it comes to Mary and the Catholic Church. So, what makes you qualified to pass judgement on whether or not Catholic doctrines about Mary should or should not rise to the level of dogma?

Nothing really .. .

I don't mean to sound harsh, but you are simply repeating the same things you have said to us in past threads on this subject and you have been told all this before, so it seems to me you have chosen to ignore facts that contradict your personal position and instead choose to continue to attack our beliefs about Mary with the same old aguments we have dismantled before, as though they are somehow valid.

They're not.

Ignoring facts in evidence in previous threads means that your aguments are not logically valid

If you want us to take what you have to say seriously, you first have to listen to what we say and deal with the evidence we present, not ignore it . . .



.

 

[Epiphanygirl]

I find it totally facinating that some Protestants are so totally preoccupied with Mary and Joseph having sex....and can't possibly fathom that she remained a virgin.
Might I ask the men in this thread a honest question.....i really want you to think about it. Put yourself in Josephs sandals for a second......

You have an angel appear to you telling him....mary is going to conceive by the HOLY SPIRIT...this will be the savior of the world......GOD.......
As a man, is it so hard to fathom that he would see it as defiling "holy ground" in a way...I mean, look how reverent Jewish men were about the temple, the Ark, etc.....what more for the New Ark? Not to be crude...but would he use his "ya know" to enter that space....would he feel worthy enough? Would any of you feel worthy enough? Would you dare tread where God has directly been? Do you not think he was showing God respect by not touching Mary?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Protestant to Protestant reply....

In the past I thought about something, that is that some say they pray to the Virgin Mary, sometimes I have heard her called Our Lady of Guadalupe, or the Lady of such-and-such place. With the doctrine on the Virgin Mary and praying to her I remembered two verses in the Gospel of Matthew that has caused concern. The following verses are as follows

"When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." (Matthew 1:24-25 NASB)


" He [Jesus] came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?

"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

"And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" (Matthew 13: 54-56 NASB).

By these two verses, we see that Mary had four sons, James, Joseph (Jr.), Simon and Judas and at least two daughters - this comes from the fact that the original Greek is plural - by her husband Joseph. I quoted from the New American Standard Bible (NASB) because it is the most literal translation for English available today.

Through the daughters and the some of Simon, Judas, and Joseph Jr., Mary and Joseph had the opportunity to have descendents. It is uncertain under James because the book of the Acts of the Apostles, a writing credited to Luke, says that he was killed by a sword. I do not know if he married and had children or descendents. The main point is that it is almost 2,000 years since Mary and Joseph had children and the significance is that is very probable for them to have living descendents today.

1. The terms "brother" and "sister" were rather vague in the First Century (as indeed they still are in many cultures - the mother of one of my Pentecostal friends calls me "Brother Josiah" all the time, LOL). While I agree with you that the MOST obvious and probably best interpretation is that these 4 men were, in fact, siblings of Jesus - such cannot be proven. Catholics will argue that they were sons of Joseph from an previous marriage (they had a completely unsubstantiated tradition that Joseph was extremely old) or even cousins. It's possible. Frankly, it can't be proven either way, and for Protestants, it's entirely and completely moot - it has ZERO implications for anything the Bible teaches.


2. This is often related to the Catholic DOGMA of Mary being a PERPETUAL virgin. Of course, we agree she was a virgin at the announciation because the Bible clearly says so - repeatedly, and it implies she was at our Lord's birth. But Catholics follow a nonbiblical teaching that she remained a virgin until she died (or didn't die). OBVIOUSLY, if these brothers are brothers - that makes that DOGMA impossible, but it can't be proven that they were. For this and other reasons, I do not declare this DOGMA to be heresy or UNbiblical - only that it's Abiblical, without any biblical substantiation whatsoever. For example, if some denomination had a tradition that Jesus had pink hair, I wouldn't be able to say that's heresy because it doesn't conflict with any Scripture, but I can't accept it as correct (much less DOGMA) since there's nothing in Scripture to support it. IMHO, it is an unnormed, unsubstantiated pious opinion. Possible - but then LOTS of things are (hey, with God nothing is impossible, LOL - doesn't mean it's true).

This leads to one concern for the doctrine to praying to Mary and petitioning her as some Catholic branches do.

I'm aware of no such doctrine in Catholicism.


I think you'll discover conflicting stuff here in the Catholic denomination. SOME will argue that they are simply seeking Mary's prayers, in much the same way as a friend may ask me to pray for them as they go for their Calc final (LOL). Many Protestants have no problem with this (Lutherans, Anglicans, some others). Some Catholics will go further and argue that her prayers will be heard whereas ours might not - such makes Protestants a tad uncomfortable. Some Catholics will say that she answers these prayers (perhaps in union with her Son) which makes us REALLY uncomfortable. Catholics use LOTS of logic, and they love to say: Okay A is true, so maybe B is true, so then C could be true, couldn't it? and so..... There tends to come a point when Protestants raise their hands and want some confirmation that God is 'on board' here - GOD is affirming this; this isn't just nice logic or some teacher going on a wild ride. AND, of course, our different epistemologies come into play.

Yet, the Bible clearly shows that the dead cannot hear petitions of prayer

I KNOW exactly where you're coming from (and going) with this.....


BUT, there is a sense in which those in heaven aren't "dead." While I agree that there's nothing that substantiates that those in heaven "hear" our prayers, it might be going a tad too far to say they CANNOT. To ME, this is a matter of adiaphora (a matter about which Scripture does not speak). But, I understand your position.

and the First Commandment is clear, "You shall have no other gods before me." The ramification for this command is that prayers and petitions can be only directed to the one God and no one else, whether it is angels or saintly men and women.

Well, again, we're back to that situation of whether these prayers are TO or THROUGH those in heaven. Asking me to pray for you isn't wrong (Scripture instructs us to pray for others). IF (and that is a big IF) Catholics are simply asking St. Anne or whatever to pray FOR them, I see nothing to condemn. Whether St. Anne hears those requests and offers those prayer - ah, Scripture just doesn't say one way or the other. Now, whether St. Anne ANSWERS those prayers - now I think we're in far more difficult territory.




I HOPE something I posted helps.
And my apologies to the CC if I totally messed up.


Pax!


- Josiah




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

My perspective...

I find it totally facinating that some Protestants are so totally preoccupied with Mary and Joseph having sex...

For the life of me, I find it totally facinating that the Catholic denomination is soooooooo totally preoccupied with how often Mary and Joseph did or didn't 'do it' that they've made it into a DOGMA - the most important of all teachings!!!!!!


No Protestant denomination (to my knowledge) has even a pious opinion about this. We tend to think it's a moot issue and quite frankly none of our business. The Bible is respectfully silent about this most inimate aspect of their supremely private lives, and so are we.


But the Catholic denomination is obsessed with the issue to the extend of making it a DOGMA!!!! Fifth grade boys and girls discuss the frequency of their private sexual intimacies in Catholic schools. Very odd.


Very.


My perspective...


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[Epiphanygirl]

My perspective...






For the life of me, I find it totally facinating that the Catholic denomination is soooooooo totally preoccupied with how often Mary and Joseph did or didn't 'do it' that they've made it into a DOGMA - the most important of all teachings!!!!!!


No Protestant denomination (to my knowledge) has even a pious opinion about this. We tend to think it's a moot issue and quite frankly none of our business. The Bible is respectfully silent about this most inimate aspect of their supremely private lives, and so are we.


But the Catholic denomination is obsessed with the issue to the extend of making it a DOGMA!!!! Fifth grade boys and girls discuss the frequency of their private sexual intimacies in Catholic schools. Very odd.


Very.


My perspective...


Pax!


- Josiah



.

Alrighty...but what about the question in my post?..................... Care to answer that one?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Alrighty...but what about the question in my post?..................... Care to answer that one?

Since you said "alrighty," I take it you understand my point.


It's NONE OF OUR BUSINESS!!!!!

It's Catholics that have made DOGMA out of this.
It's Catholics that are OBSESSED with this.
It's Catholics who claim to absolutely know the frequency of their most surpremely private inimate sharings within the sacred bonds of the Sacrament of Marriage.
It's Catholics who say this frequency is THE MOST IMPORTANT level of teaching.


The Bible is respectfully and understandably silent about this most private aspect of this couple's life. Protestants follow that. It's all moot anyway.






Now, to your completely moot question:

Might I ask the men in this thread a honest question.....i really want you to think about it. Put yourself in Josephs sandals for a second......

You have an angel appear to you telling him....mary is going to conceive by the HOLY SPIRIT...this will be the savior of the world......GOD.......
As a man, is it so hard to fathom that he would see it as defiling "holy ground" in a way...I mean, look how reverent Jewish men were about the temple, the Ark, etc.....what more for the New Ark? Not to be crude...but would he use his "ya know" to enter that space....would he feel worthy enough? Would any of you feel worthy enough? Would you dare tread where God has directly been? Do you not think he was showing God respect by not touching Mary?

I can only answer from MY perspective.
AND IT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS!

I perhaps would not "know" her until Jesus was born - I can see that point.

Why I would choose to punish her, to push her way and require she push me away, after that birth is beyond me. I do not share what seems to your assumption that the loving mutual sharing of such intimacies within the sacred bonds of Holy Matrimony somehow "defiles" my wife or makes her "sinful" or "bad" Or me, either. It's a gift, a supreme blessing. From God. To married couples. I don't suspect that God would want to punish Mary (or Joseph) and so deprive them because they were so faithful and obedient. I'm not following the logic there, at all.

BUT, of course, none of that has anything to do with anything. Polling 10 men how THEY'D feel has nothing whatsoever to do with what Mary and Joseph did or how often they did or didn't do it. I know I'm a Protestant and so have an entirely different approach here, but just because something seems possible to YOU doesn't make it DOGMA.


One more point, just personally. I honor Our Lady and hold her in esteem above all other persons. To say something about her that isn't true is serious to me. In the First Century, NOTHING (NOTHING) was consider more private, more a matter of supreme modesty, less ANYONE'S business than the sharing of such intimacies in marriage. To even discuss such - especially in public - was surpremely - supremely - rude and offensive and hurtful and embarrousing. I care whether Our Lady is hurt, offended or embarrosed - whether this theory of your denomination is true or not. I'd rather side on keeping my mouth shut on some nonbiblical theory that is true, than to venture into the VERY MOST offensive issue of all and it's not true - or even if true, not something Our Lady wants preached about in Sunday Mass, discussed by school children on the playground, ie MADE INTO DOGMA. Catholics THINK our "issues" are becuase we don't venerate and adore Her. They're wrong.



My $0.01


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[krstlros]

My perspective...






For the life of me, I find it totally facinating that the Catholic denomination is soooooooo totally preoccupied with how often Mary and Joseph did or didn't 'do it' that they've made it into a DOGMA - the most important of all teachings!!!!!!


No Protestant denomination (to my knowledge) has even a pious opinion about this. We tend to think it's a moot issue and quite frankly none of our business. The Bible is respectfully silent about this most inimate aspect of their supremely private lives, and so are we.


But the Catholic denomination is obsessed with the issue to the extend of making it a DOGMA!!!! Fifth grade boys and girls discuss the frequency of their private sexual intimacies in Catholic schools. Very odd.


Very.


My perspective...


Pax!


- Josiah



.

Which behooves me to end why Protestants and Evangelicals, in my experience, are pre-occupied with whether Joseph and Mary "had" done it, and are constantly questioning whether they "did" or "didn't". Why is it so important to them that there be "proof" that they had relations?

Catholics don't ask the question. Others do. We just keep on answering.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I care whether Our Lady is hurt, offended or embarrosed - whether this theory of your denomination is true or not. I'd rather side on keeping my mouth shut . . . .

One has to wonder then why this member doesn't . . . .

Why I would choose to punish her, to push her way and require she push me away, after that birth is beyond me. I do not share what seems to your assumption that the loving mutual sharing of such intimacies within the sacred bonds of Holy Matrimony somehow "defiles" my wife or makes her "sinful" or "bad" Or me, either. It's a gift, a supreme blessing. From God. To married couples. I don't suspect that God would want to punish Mary (or Joseph) and so deprive them because they were so faithful and obedient. I'm not following the logic there, at all.

.

 

[Epiphanygirl]

Rofl...........

 

[thereselittleflower]

Which behooves me to end why Protestants and Evangelicals, in my experience, are pre-occupied with whether Joseph and Mary "had" done it, and are constantly questioning whether they "did" or "didn't". Why is it so important to them that there be "proof" that they had relations?

Exactly! And obviously this is true for some more than others . .

Catholics don't ask the question. Others do. We just keep on answering.

Exactly!


.

 

[orthodoxy]

In the past I thought about something, that is that some say they pray to the Virgin Mary, sometimes I have heard her called Our Lady of Guadalupe, or the Lady of such-and-such place. With the doctrine on the Virgin Mary and praying to her I remembered two verses in the Gospel of Matthew that has caused concern. The following verses are as follows

"When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." (Matthew 1:24-25 NASB)


" He [Jesus] came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?

"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

"And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" (Matthew 13: 54-56 NASB).

By these two verses, we see that Mary had four sons, James, Joseph (Jr.), Simon and Judas and at least two daughters - this comes from the fact that the original Greek is plural - by her husband Joseph. I quoted from the New American Standard Bible (NASB) because it is the most literal translation for English available today.

Through the daughters and the some of Simon, Judas, and Joseph Jr., Mary and Joseph had the opportunity to have descendents. It is uncertain under James because the book of the Acts of the Apostles, a writing credited to Luke, says that he was killed by a sword. I do not know if he married and had children or descendents. The main point is that it is almost 2,000 years since Mary and Joseph had children and the significance is that is very probable for them to have living descendents today.

This leads to one concern for the doctrine to praying to Mary and petitioning her as some Catholic branches do. If she has living descendents, then it means that any who act according to the doctrine about the Virgin Mary, then it would literally be praying to their ancestor. Yet, the Bible clearly shows that the dead cannot hear petitions of prayer and the First Commandment is clear, "You shall have no other gods before me." The ramification for this command is that prayers and petitions can be only directed to the one God and no one else, whether it is angels or saintly men and women.

I did pray to Mary a few times, but then stopped because it was pointless to ask someone who could not hear them if I did them silently in the heart when God could hear them and only He could do anything about the prayers in the first place.

In the end, prayers to Mary or saints in pointless because they can not hear them and God wants us only to pray to Him directly.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

One has to wonder then why this member doesn't . . . .

Read the posts I placed in this forum IN RESPONSE TO OTHERS.

Try to recall WHO has a DOGMA about their intimate sexual relationship?
Is it me?
Is it the CC?
Which has this issue of how often they "did it" as DOGMA?
Which has declared this issue to be THE MOST IMPORTANT level of teaching?
Who is shouting this?
Who is saying this is true and critical?


You seem to be getting the two positions reversed.

 

[BigNorsk]

Actually no, it doesn't say that anywhere.

It says he took her into his house . . from that point she lived under his roof . . . .




There is no such phrase in the bible.



hence no necessity at all can be mandated from a phrase that is not used in scripture.



Of course there were . . . Moses from the time God called him had no relations with his wife . .

The Jewish men, when devoting themselves to the service of the study of Torah, abstained from their wives, sometimes for years.

There is clear precedent for a man abstaining from his wife while totally devoted to God and His Word.

Now here we have Jesus, the Word Incarnate living in Joseph's home . . Mary and Jospeh totally devoted themselves to the Word Incarnate. It would be in perfect keeping with established practice to abstaine from sex totally during such a time . .and since this lasted the rest of Joseph's life, abstaining from his wife would have been proper for the rest of his life too.



Not at all. . . . you have simply based this on assumptions that the scriptures use a phrase that is not there and a misunderstanding of Jewish pratice regarding devotion to Torah, The Word and what this would mean for 2 people, especially the man, devoted to the service The Living Word.



Now we are entering into claims that you have no foundation for.

Where is the proof that such doctrines and dogmas were "added"?



This has absolutely nothing to do with any concept of sex being sinful . . . you are misrepresenting Catholic belief here.




Yes it does.



Where?




No such idiom exists in the bible . . . you are basing an entire argument on a non existant phrase.




Of course it would be dishonoring to God. Mary was taken as the spouse of the Holy Spirit. The Father of Jesus is none other than God Himself.

No self respecting devote Jewish man would ever consider having sexual relations with a woman claimed by God . . . To take what was consecrated to God and then use it for common use would have been abhorrant to the Jewish mind .. .

God passing through the birth canal to enter this world made this passageway consecrated to God.

Joseph would have never taken what was consecrated to God and used it in so common a manner as you claim.

To claim what you have claimed only results from a failure to understand what this would mean to someone such as Joseph . . . .

The Fulness of the Godhead bodily passed through this Virginal womb and birth canal to enter the world. . .

Tell me . . if the Fulness of the Godhead bodily passed through your wife's birth canal, would you ever feel right about using it for the common purpose of sex?

This is not a flippant question . . I want you to really think about this and give an honest, heart felt answer .. .

Now, put yourself in the position of a righteous, devout Jewish man who would never take for himself and his own use what the Fulness of the Godhead bodily has occupied andpassed through any more than he would have dared to enter the Holy of Holies in the Jewish Temple once occupied by the Shekinah glory of God.


Really think about this.




Umm . . no . . the practice of Jewish men was to abstain for as long as they were devoted to service of Torah, as long as that took, which could be years.

They didn't have the pre-occupation with sex that men in modern western cultuer have . . These men were pre-occupied with God. Abstaining from sex was not a problem.



Horsefeathers BN . . that is your own bias speaking and erroneous assumptions speaking. Nothing else . . It is uneducated and uninformed regarding what true pietism is in regards to Mary and Joseph. I am sorry, but this is true.

Your allegations that Catholic pietism regardng Mary and Joseph comes mostly from gnostic writings is especially ignorant and misinformed, and very insulting to Catholic in their faith.



Nothing superhuman about it again, that is more prejudicial, uninformed bias speaking than anything else.



You have presented a false image of what Catholics believe, and then you are trying to reconcile that false image with scripture . .

Why don't you try developing a TRUE image of what Catholics believe first. . .

This is a red herring . .




Funny how Jesus did His first miracle at the request of His mother, isn't it?

Funny how His mother was so instrumental in the launching of His ministry . . . .

And what you call "admonishing" is just simply more of the same misinformed bias against Catholic teaching you have. . . .

There was nothing at all admonishing about Jesus' words to Mary there in any way shape or form.


That is simply your uninformed interpretation . . nothing more .. .




Where does scripture tell us that scripture alone tells us what we need to know?




That is your opinion . .however, as I have shown above, it is poorly informed when it comes to Mary and the Catholic Church. So, what makes you qualified to pass judgement on whether or not Catholic doctrines about Mary should or should not rise to the level of dogma?

Nothing really .. .

I don't mean to sound harsh, but you are simply repeating the same things you have said to us in past threads on this subject and you have been told all this before, so it seems to me you have chosen to ignore facts that contradict your personal position and instead choose to continue to attack our beliefs about Mary with the same old aguments we have dismantled before, as though they are somehow valid.

They're not.

Ignoring facts in evidence in previous threads means that your aguments are not logically valid

If you want us to take what you have to say seriously, you first have to listen to what we say and deal with the evidence we present, not ignore it . . .



.

Mat 1:24 DRB And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife.


There is the reference, I quoted the Douay-Rheims for your benefit.

Maybe I should also mention that I don't see anything in the Bible that says Mary and Joseph forsook their vows to each other. Which once again would have included sex with each other.

God's command is:
1Co 7:5 NET. Do not deprive each other, except by mutual agreement for a specified time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then resume your relationship, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

It does injustice to the passage to think that the specified time can include a lifetime. Since Mary and Joseph were married, God's will, as revealed through scripture would have been for them to have sexual relations, not depriving. If they had no desire for sex they would not have married, and being married it was wrong if they deprived themselves.

Marv

 

[thereselittleflower]

Mat 1:24 DRB And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife.

Took unto him his wife . . . not "his woman" . . .

If what you claim is true, then this would mean that they had sex before the birth of Christ, for he "took unto him his wife" well before Christ was born .. .

If he didn't do this, then this phrase doesn't mean what you are trying to make it mean. . . . . there is nothing that mandates such an understanding.

There is the reference, I quoted the Douay-Rheims for your benefit.

Doesn't change my argument above in the least . . . If he took unto him his wife means sexual relations, then that means they had sexual relations while she was pregnant, because that is when he took his wife unto him.

This is the dilema your argument creates. . . .

So, it does not mean what you claim it means. . . .

Maybe I should also mention that I don't see anything in the Bible that says Mary and Joseph forsook their vows to each other. Which once again would have included sex with each other.

And who says that everything that you need or want to know is clearly stated in the bible?

Luke makes it very clear to the ancient Jewish mind (not your modern western protestant mind) that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant . . . He did not have to state it, it was clearly embedded in his careful choice of words describing Mary and her journey to and visit with Elizabeth and surrounding events, paralleling this with what all Jews knew about the Ark and David.. . . .

How would a Jewish man conceive of having sexual relations with the Ark of the New Covenant? The living Ark for the Living Word, the God-Man?

God's command is:
1Co 7:5 NET. Do not deprive each other, except by mutual agreement for a specified time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then resume your relationship, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Ummm Mary and Joseph did not live under the New Covenant while Joseph was alive .. . you are creating a logically fallacious argument, trying to apply something that was commanded after Christ died and rose from the dead and ascended into heaven and the beginning of the Church, to someone who didn't live to even see this . .

Sorry . . very invalid argument and poor use of reason. . ..

It does injustice to the passage to think that the specified time can include a lifetime.

It does injustice, and is an example of wresting the scriptures, to apply what came afterwards to someone who lived years and years before the command was given.

In addition, it is known that the apostles abstained from their wives (those who had them) for the rest of their lives . . . .

Sorry . . your argument flies in the face of all reason. . . .

Since Mary and Joseph were married, God's will, as revealed through scripture would have been for them to have sexual relations, not depriving.

Umm . . those scriptures did not even exist when Joseph was alive .. I hope you are getting the point by now regarding the sheer absurdity of such an argument.

If they had no desire for sex they would not have married, and being married it was wrong if they deprived themselves.

Marv

Horsefeathers! Absolutely no valid basis for such a claim . . .


.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I care whether Our Lady is hurt, offended or embarrosed - whether this theory of your denomination is true or not. I'd rather side on keeping my mouth shut . . . .

Huh???????

Why I would choose to punish her, to push her way and require she push me away, after that birth is beyond me. I do not share what seems to your assumption that the loving mutual sharing of such intimacies within the sacred bonds of Holy Matrimony somehow "defiles" my wife or makes her "sinful" or "bad" Or me, either. It's a gift, a supreme blessing. From God. To married couples. I don't suspect that God would want to punish Mary (or Joseph) and so deprive them because they were so faithful and obedient. I'm not following the logic there, at all.

hmmm . .. as they say . . actions speak louder . . . ..



.


.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Mat 1:24 DRB And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife.


There is the reference, I quoted the Douay-Rheims for your benefit.

Maybe I should also mention that I don't see anything in the Bible that says Mary and Joseph forsook their vows to each other. Which once again would have included sex with each other.

God's command is:
1Co 7:5 NET. Do not deprive each other, except by mutual agreement for a specified time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then resume your relationship, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

It does injustice to the passage to think that the specified time can include a lifetime. Since Mary and Joseph were married, God's will, as revealed through scripture would have been for them to have sexual relations, not depriving. If they had no desire for sex they would not have married, and being married it was wrong if they deprived themselves.

Marv

Points to ponder......

Mary 'of' Alpheuas, Mary 'of' Magdela [single], Mary 'of' James, Mary 'of' Cleophas,

Mary the Mother 'of' Jesus.

What is this? Why do we NOT see Mary 'of' Joseph??

Because in those days, it was customary to include 'of' when a marriage was fully consumated.
But when a woman was left single...sometimes they were named 'of' the town they resided or rather pardon, the town they came from.

 

[BigNorsk]

I guess expecting an apology for all the claims that the phrase didn't exist is a bit much. Just move on to the next condemnations.

Marv

 

[dave90]

In my orginial post I am in no way attacking the whole of the Catholic Church. I respect them quite well, so please no more acussations of that.

I speak to one point and that is the specific aspect of people praying to the Virgin Mary.

In response to the second responder of this thread, I can say this with great validity in research. The epistle of James and the epsitle of Jude, another way you can call someone named Judas, were written by James and Judas. They were half-brothers of Jesus, born to Mary.

In the Gospel of Matthew, it is mentioned she gave birth to Jesus, then sexually consumated the marriage to her husband, Joseph.

how can Jesus have half-brothers unless Mary or Joesph married someone else?