Yet another "Mary" thread . . . . .

[IamAdopted]

God sancitfied marriage from the very beginning with Adam and Eve.. They were to become one flesh.. Now how do you suppose this is to happen? This is why men and woman are created with the bodies we have is so as we can come together as one flesh..

 

[Asinner]

I think you just surrendered your arguement and support for your dogma of the VIRGINITY of Eve before the Fall and the PERPETUAL VIRGINITY of Mary.

You seem to forget one very important thing here, Josiah. Our opinions are not what are important. What is important is Truth and I surrender my limited knowledge and my limited intelligence to those who walked in Christ more perfectly than I will ever walk. They are the Church and they say that Adam and Eve were virgins in the Garden and that Mary was ever-virgin. How do I know that they speak the Truth? Because of their lives and their deaths. Their Virtue and Grace are manifested in the way they lived and in the way they died. You are arguing against Holy Tradition, against the teachings that have always been. You are arguing against St. John Chrysostom, St. John Damascene, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, St. Ephraim the Syrian, and many, many others. I will step down now and allow you to argue with the Church.

Love,
Christina

 

[Asinner]

Can someone tell me in what way believing Mary is a perpetual virgin or that Jesus has no real brothers helps me to become like Christ?

It is called Purity and Chastity. From Mary we learn Virtue and Obedience, Suffering, and a complete devotion to Jesus Christ.

Love,
Christina

 

[HisKid1973]

Believe it on not some argue against the original aspostles..Remember mans ideas crept in from day one even to the taking of sides..I am of Peter, I am of Paul.. I would rather err on th side of the apostlses than someone futher away from thier time..Remember when we get to the judgement seat our works will be rewarded for following the teachings of Christ and His words in the sacred scripture and not in that which was added later...If the sacred scripture do not at least support someting then I would be a little leery..Remember this is all about Christ and truely"knowing Him..And not about following things that came along later.. If these things were that important to follow, they would have been brought up in what we know as the sacred scriptures.. I have nothing against the ecf's as they provide testimoney of God's faithfullness, just like hebrews..My issue come when we start makeing dogmas and doctrines apart fron the original apostles, we open ourselves up for even more error to creap in....pax..Kim

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You seem to forget one very important thing here, Josiah. Our opinions are not what are important. What is important is Truth and I surrender my limited knowledge and my limited intelligence to those who walked in Christ more perfectly than I will ever walk. They are the Church and they say that Adam and Eve were virgins in the Garden and that Mary was ever-virgin. How do I know that they speak the Truth? Because of their lives and their deaths. Their Virtue and Grace are manifested in the way they lived and in the way they died. You are arguing against Holy Tradition, against the teachings that have always been. You are arguing against St. John Chrysostom, St. John Damascene, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, St. Ephraim the Syrian, and many, many others. I will step down now and allow you to argue with the Church.

Yes, your denomination teaches this. As dogma.


Lots of denominations teach lots of things. Are they always, automatically, categorically and unquestionably correct? Or just yours?


If you make a statement of fact and as dogma, you should not be surprised or offended that others ask for some substantiation.


It's true that some later church father's believed this. Many Christians - including Luther and Calvin - did/do. But that's not the issue we're discussing. We're discussing if it's true.


Yes, your denomination teaches it. But the Bible, the noncanonical book you suggested, and the earliest church fathers do not. There is no evidence that it "was always taught" - much less as dogma. But you don't seem to appreciate that YOU are the one with the dogma on the issue of how often Mary and Joseph did it together after Jesus was born. YOU are the one saying it's a fact. YOU are the one saying it's of highest certainty and importance and must be believed. It's YOUR dogma. You shouldn't be so troubled that people ask you for verification. And you shouldn't be surprised that others do not find as compelling, "But my denomination says it's right!" anymore than we would if a JW or Christian Scientist used the same defense and substantiation for the denomination's teaching. I hope you can appreicate that. Because YOU are the one insisting that they never did it - not once - and that you are dogmatically certain of this. It's YOUR view.



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah

 

[Asinner]

Believe it on not some argue against the original aspostles..Remember mans ideas crept in from day one evn to the taking of sides..I am of Ieter, I am of Paul.. I would rather err on th side of the apostlses than someone futher away from thier time..remember whenw e get to the judgement seat our works will be rewarded for following the teachings of Christ and His words in the sacred scripture and not in this added later...If the sacred scripture do not at least support someting then I would be a little leery..Remember this is all about Christ and truely"knowing Him..And not about following things that came along later.. If these things were that important to follow, thay would have been brought up in what we know as the sacred scriptures..pax..Kim

Kim,

The Church existed in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th . . . centuries. Not just now and not only while the Apostles were alive. We can see the Church existing through the lives of the saints. The Church of Christ is continuouly being built upon the blood of these saints and to deny them is to deny His Church and ultimately, Christ.

Love,
Christina

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

From Mary we learn Virtue

What in the world does a wife not lovingly sharing intimacies with her husband within the sacred bonds of the Sacrament of Marriage have to do with virtue? Is it your position that a wife that so lovingly shares with her husband is less virtuous than one who does not? Does such loving, mutual sharing somehow defile the wife and make her impure and unvirtuous?






.

 

[Asinner]

Yes, your denomination teaches this. As dogma.


Lots of denominations teach lots of things. Are they always, automatically, categorically and unquestionably correct? Or just yours?


If you make a statement of fact and as dogma, you should not be surprised or offended that others ask for some substantiation.


It's true that some later church father's believed this. Many Christians - including Luther and Calvin - did/do. But that's not the issue we're discussing. We're discussing if it's true.


Yes, your denomination teaches it. But the Bible, the noncanonical book you suggested, and the earliest church fathers do not. There is no evidence that it "was always taught" - much less as dogma. But you don't seem to appreciate that YOU are the one with the dogma on the issue of how often Mary and Joseph did it together after Jesus was born. YOU are the one saying it's a fact. YOU are the one saying it's of highest certainty and importance and must be believed. It's YOUR dogma. You shouldn't be so troubled that people ask you for verification. And you shouldn't be surprised that others do not find as compelling, "But my denomination says it's right!" anymore than we would if a JW or Christian Scientist used the same defense and substantiation for the denomination's teaching. I hope you can appreicate that. Because YOU are the one insisting that they never did it - not once - and that you are dogmatically certain of this. It's YOUR view.



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah

It is supported in the Holy Scriptures. You choose to interpret it differently. Your interpretation is much lacking, for it makes God's command stagnant and unfulfilled for a period of unknown time. It also places sexual passion in the Garden. Being that you are an admitted virgin, you have no authority or understanding of what this means.

Love,
Christina

 

[Asinner]

What in the world does a wife not lovingly sharing intimacies with her husband within the sacred bonds of the Sacrament of Marriage have to do with virtue? Is it your position that a wife that so lovingly shares with her husband is less virtuous than one who does not? Does such loving, mutual sharing somehow defile the wife and make her impure and unvirtuous?






.

I was asked a question. Why don't you read it before you become accusatory.

 

[Oblio]

defiled, impure, deprived, unvirtuous ...

CJ, can you possibly add any more loaded words to each of your posts ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It is supported in the Holy Scriptures. You choose to interpret it differently.

I respectfully disagree.


This is NOT a matter of hermeneutics of Scriptures. No one has yet - in all these centuries - provided a single verse about the sexual intimacies of Mary and Joseph after Jesus was born for us to interpret. There are no verses on this subject. So we obviously cannot disagree on the interpretation of them.


IMHO, the unavoidable point is that the Bible is understandably and respectfully silent about this supremely private aspect of thier private marital lives; it says NOTHING about how often they did or did not share intimacies after Jesus was born. Nothing. Nor does the Protoevangelium of James (a rejected noncanonical book). Neither to the earliest church fathers.

Being that you are an admitted virgin, you have no authority or understanding of what this means.

Pax!


- Josiah

 

[Axion]

If Jesus had wanted a single book to be the sole deposit of Faith and teaching, perhaps He would have written one? Or perhaps he would have left it behind Him and said "Here it is - all you need. You don't need a living Church guided by my spirit. Take this book and follow it."
Or Perhaps He would have ensured that the Bible said somewhere that it contained everything exclusively that He had taught, and all interpretation of that teaching. Perhaps He could have then listed the books of the Bible too?

But He didn't leave a book. He didn't even instruct that a book be written. Nor did He say to Paul, "Write an infallible and complete manual of Christianity." Jesus left His teaching authority to the Church He founded, guided by the Spirit.

Those who try to say that the Church got it all wrong, that Mary and Joseph forgot all about the unique holiness of their office and vocation and became "normal" swingers with dozens of kids. Or perhaps that Jesus had kids as well, are setting out on the same dangerous road of believing they know better than the historic living Body of Christ - the Church.

 

[WarriorAngel]

THIS is something I pondered after racer brought up about Elizabeth and Mary's giving birth.

Matthew 1
21 And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name JESUS. For he shall save his people from their sins.
15 Matthew 1
23 Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Luke 1
31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.
Luke 1

57 Now Elizabeth's full time of being delivered was come, and she brought forth a son.

Now, why didn’t Elizabeth have the ‘firstborn’ …?
First if we look, Mary did not have ‘firstborn’ either in all instances …and Elizabeth was mentioned but one time in comparison.

And yet, Luke goes into great detail that John was an extraordinary birth because Elizabeth was well advanced in her age, and it would be surmised that since she was barren and had John for the proposed be the precursor of Christ, that she may have well been understood to the baron as an ongoing situation. …only being interrupted by John’s birth.
We know very little about John’s life, and perhaps Elizabeth died shortly after.
The Bible never speaks of John caring for his parents.
As an only child, the law would have prescribed this. And he who called for repentance would not have been dismissing the Law.
In fact, he lived wild, and ate of the earth. Could be he was raised in Grace and not having parents for long….maybe as a young man at age 9-10-13…?
But his demeanor and unattachments tell us he did not have responsibility to parents.
He was not one to shirk them if he was to call others to righteousness.

Whereas, firstborn is a respectful dutiful title, given to the first son that opens the womb.
For the title alone signifies the one who gains everything in accord to the parents. The one WHO is responsible, and must align himself to all the duties.
Just another title to the Lord showing His obedience to Mary, and the Father.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If Jesus had wanted a single book to be the sole deposit of Faith and teaching, perhaps He would have written one?

He did.


What I learned in the Catholic Church, and I fully agree with it (and hope you do, too), "The Bible is the Word of GOD and no greater assurance of credence can be given." "The Bible was inspired by GOD. Exactly what does this mean? It means that GOD is the Author of the Bible. GOD inspired the penmen to write as GOD wished and guided them to do so without error."

Thus, God wrote a book. It's called the Bible. Now, I'm certain that you accept that Jesus has two united natures - human and divine. This means that Jesus also is the author of the Bible.

You don't need a living Church guided by my spirit. Take this book and follow it."

1. No one is suggesting that we don't need the church. There are just some who don't equate the Roman Catholic denomination with that church. Some of us literally mean it when we proclaim, "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church." It's NOT the church we question, it's the RC denomination. Apples and oranges.


2. Your rebuke of private interpretation is shared by me. I not only reject it when an individual person self-claims to be the sole authority, sole interpreter and sole arbiter - infallible and therefore unaccountable in all the above, but I also reject it when an individual denomination self-claims exactly the same things - even if it happens to be my own denomination or my own self. As Protestants are apt to say, "It's not Jesus and ME, it's Jesus and WE."

Or Perhaps He would have ensured that the Bible said somewhere that it contained everything exclusively that He had taught, and all interpretation of that teaching. Perhaps He could have then listed the books of the Bible too?

I do not question that it's THEORETICALLY possible that the Mormons are right and that God did inspired the Book of Mormon. "With God all things are possible." Arguing that something is impossible in referenced to God always seems like a difficult road to go down. But, my Catholic brother, just cuz it's POSSIBLE that God inspired the Book of Mormon doesn't make it unquestionably so, IMHO.

Sure, I admit, Jesus might have taught some dogmas that the Holy Spirit forgot to include in His holy inerrant written Word to us, and realizing that, entrusted it instead to the ______________ (fill in the name of your own denomination there) instead. Again, I try to avoid the "God COULD not do that" argument. But I see no evidence to support that it's the case. And since no one seems able to agree on what exactly God so forgot, it's a matter I'd leave a notch below what we know He didn't forget.

Jesus left His teaching authority to the Church He founded, guided by the Spirit.

I passionate agree.


I just don't know what in the world that has to do with the Roman Catholic denomination, and I don't know what that has to do with the ability to proclaim dogmas that have no verification in God's holy inerrant written Word to the church, and use such to divide His church.



My $0.01


Back to the topic...


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[music4two]

It is called Purity and Chastity. From Mary we learn Virtue and Obedience, Suffering, and a complete devotion to Jesus Christ.

Love,
Christina

Are you then saying that Mary is your example? Is Mary something other then normal humanity?

 

[WarriorAngel]

Believe it on not some argue against the original aspostles..Remember mans ideas crept in from day one even to the taking of sides..I am of Peter, I am of Paul.. I would rather err on th side of the apostlses than someone futher away from thier time..Remember when we get to the judgement seat our works will be rewarded for following the teachings of Christ and His words in the sacred scripture and not in that which was added later...If the sacred scripture do not at least support someting then I would be a little leery..Remember this is all about Christ and truely"knowing Him..And not about following things that came along later.. If these things were that important to follow, they would have been brought up in what we know as the sacred scriptures.. I have nothing against the ecf's as they provide testimoney of God's faithfullness, just like hebrews..My issue come when we start makeing dogmas and doctrines apart fron the original apostles, we open ourselves up for even more error to creap in....pax..Kim

First, the Church councils considered putting the ECF's into the canon.

Second, they didnt do so because they were keeping them anyway, and instructing from them.

Third, they knew the Holy Spirit didnt leave the Church when the Apostles died.

Forth, the ECF's didn't write books, so much as made short arguments against those who were not following the Oral Traditions that the APOSTLES commanded we keep.

Just because the CHURCH did not add them, and all fathers afterwards, in no way reflects on any lack of inspiration.

Matter of fact, wasn't the rich man begging for Abraham to let him tell his brothers of his torments?
And through the Lord Abraham said...'I send my prophets whom they wouldnt listen to...' so basically, if we do not listen to the ECF's and understand the Holy Spirit stayed with the Church, then He will do no more than what is done.

Ask for proof of what it means in scriptures, and He already had it written by His fathers of His Church.

Who carefully guarded all that was taught of and since the Apostles.

 

[Asinner]

Are you then saying that Mary is your example? Is Mary something other then normal humanity?

I am neither.

 

[WarriorAngel]

God sancitfied marriage from the very beginning with Adam and Eve.. They were to become one flesh.. Now how do you suppose this is to happen? This is why men and woman are created with the bodies we have is so as we can come together as one flesh..

Mary was already married.
Her spouse was the Holy Spirit.

Unless of course we suggest her vows to God were less important and hence the Spirit committed an unspeakable act within the bonds of her earthly marriage??

Joseph certainly understood his position was to guard and protect her because of the hardness of hearts in mankind.

Now, did she or did she NOT make a VOW to the Lord to do HIS WILL?

And did or did not the Holy Spirit become her legal spouse when He impregnated her with God?

Would a righteous man defile that which the Lord claimed as His?

Whom was the Spouse of Mary?

Joseph or God?
And if we agree it was God first, then being 'with' Joseph would have been adultery.

If it was Joseph was her legal spouse, then Mary was defiled by the Lord and adulterous.

Can we see the dilemma of her consumating with Joseph?

Or because God is God He doesnt count?

If He doesnt count, then why choose a Mother to begin with? Why take on Flesh of this world if the relationships of the flesh are moot point?

HE came to be as we are. In everything EXCEPT A sinner.

 

[HisKid1973]

What did it mean that he didn't "know" her til after Christ was born? What does "know " mean in a biblical sense...You guys try to explain too much into something..pax..Kim

 

[Oblio]

What did it mean that he didn't "know" her til after Christ was born? What does "know " mean in a biblical sense...You guys try to explain too much into something..pax..Kim

What does 'til' mean in a Biblical sense ?