How do non-Catholics explain Eucharistic miracles, such as bleeding, and Marian...

[MoreCoffee]

I don't think I've asked this before, but why is it so important for Mary to be "ever-virgin"?

It isn't important that it be so it just is so.

Being so, as it is, has significance but like so many of the things God does it is not obvious why it is so before it happens and having happened its significance can be understood in retrospect with the light of Christ to illumine God's gracious act in raising up a virgin to bear the Son of God.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well, God does; I guess that counts, right?

That's the perfect answer.

It actually wasn't. But MC is a sly fox and knew what I was getting to. Rev's answer was actually more appropriate.

But you have no answer to the fact that God calls Jesus his first born son.

Facts have a way of humbling one's theology.

 

[Stryder06]

It isn't important that it be so it just is so.

Being so, as it is, has significance but like so many of the things God does it is not obvious why it is so before it happens and having happened its significance can be understood in retrospect with the light of Christ to illumine God's gracious act in raising up a virgin to bear the Son of God.

So perhaps my question should have been "How do you know it's so"?

If scripture says Jesus has brothers, and it says that Joseph knew Mary after she gave birth to Jesus, why would one dismiss those texts in an effort to maintain the "ever-virgin" status?

 

[Stryder06]

But you have no answer to the fact that God calls Jesus his first born son.

No answer because it's correct. It is what it is, just as I admitted the same to Rev about his Jewish friends.

Facts have a way of humbling one's theology.

No. Fact's have a way of getting in the way of individuals theology. Like the fact that the bible says that Jesus had brothers and sisters, or the fact that it says Joseph knew Mary after she gave birth.

I have no problem admitting that the usage of "firstborn" was a weak argument since it's most likely going to differ based on culture. That doesn't change the fact that scripture says He had siblings, and that Joseph and knew Mary.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So perhaps my question should have been "How do you know it's so"?

If scripture says Jesus has brothers, and it says that Joseph knew Mary after she gave birth to Jesus, why would one dismiss those texts in an effort to maintain the "ever-virgin" status?

I answered that for you before but it bears repeating. I know it is so because the Church teaches that it is so and the Church teaches it because the Fathers taught it and the Fathers taught it because the Apostles taught them and the Apostles taught it because God in Christ revealed it to them. In all things God has the pre-eminence.

Thus I believe it because God revealed it.

 

[Standing Up]

I answered that for you before but it bears repeating. I know it is so because the Church teaches that it is so and the Church teaches it because the Fathers taught it and the Fathers taught it because the Apostles taught them and the Apostles taught it because God in Christ revealed it to them. In all things God has the pre-eminence.

Thus I believe it because God revealed it.

Not really. The Church teaches that Jesus Christ was born of water and blood (1 John), that His birth was normal, that He was of the flesh. God revealed this to apostles who revealed it to faithful men who taught the same.

 

[Standing Up]

This thread isn't about Mary, but about visions of Mary, whether they are true or not.

From what we've seen, the visions point away from Christ to an entity called Immaculate Heart. The visions should be rejected by the faithful in Christ as spurious and deceptive.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No answer because it's correct. It is what it is, just as I admitted the same to Rev about his Jewish friends.

I praise God that you so freely admit that it is a truth of revelation that God calls Jesus is first born son.

No. Fact's have a way of getting in the way of individuals theology. Like the fact that the bible says that Jesus had brothers and sisters, or the fact that it says Joseph knew Mary after she gave birth.

I freely admit that Jesus has brothers and sisters, he has millions upon millions of them today. And in the days of his Earthly sojourn he had brothers and sisters too. Yet Mary is "the mother of Jesus" and is never called "the mother of <insert name here>" where the name is not Jesus. As I observed before, you ought to search your bible and see if what I have written is so - as the Bereans did.

I have no problem admitting that the usage of "firstborn" was a weak argument since it's most likely going to differ based on culture. That doesn't change the fact that scripture says He had siblings, and that Joseph and knew Mary.

For the siblings, I will let that go for now because it is not important. For the claim that Joseph had sex with Mary I challenge you to find a text that says that Joseph "knew Mary" in the carnal sense that you intend in your claim.

(Matthew 1:18) Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit;

(Matthew 27:56) among whom were Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb'edee.

(Mark 15:40) There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo'me,

(Mark 15:47) Mary Mag'dalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.

(Mark 16:1) And when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo'me, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.

(Luke 2:34) and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, "Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against

(Luke 24:10) Now it was Mary Mag'dalene and Jo-an'na and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told this to the apostles;

(John 19:25) So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag'dalene.

(Acts 1:14) All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

(Acts 12:12) When he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying.

 

[Standing Up]

I praise God that you so freely admit that it is a truth of revelation that God calls Jesus is first born son.


=snip-

Being the first born has nothing to do with whether there are subsequent children; scripture is full of examples. Christ was the first born, but that has nothing to do with whether Mary/Joseph had children.

 

[Stryder06]

I answered that for you before but it bears repeating. I know it is so because the Church teaches that it is so and the Church teaches it because the Fathers taught it and the Fathers taught it because the Apostles taught them and the Apostles taught it because God in Christ revealed it to them. In all things God has the pre-eminence.

Thus I believe it because God revealed it.

And I've told you before but I guess it bears repeating: You can't prove any of that. If Christ taught this to the disciples, why then does the scripture say otherwise? Why say that Joseph knew Mary if she was ever-virgin?

 

[Stryder06]

I freely admit that Jesus has brothers and sisters, he has millions upon millions of them today. And in the days of his Earthly sojourn he had brothers and sisters too. Yet Mary is "the mother of Jesus" and is never called "the mother of <insert name here>" where the name is not Jesus. As I observed before, you ought to search your bible and see if what I have written is so - as the Bereans did.

Hate to break this to you but the bible, the gospels in particular, aren't about Mary. It's about Christ. It wouldn't be necessary to say "Mary Mother of <Other child> because the other child wasn't important to the text.

For the siblings, I will let that go for now because it is not important. For the claim that Joseph had sex with Mary I challenge you to find a text that says that Joseph "knew Mary" in the carnal sense that you intend in your claim.

What other way is the word "knew" used in the bible? Like seriously when the bible says And X knew Y it's about sex. Calling it "carnal" is pointless

 

[Rev Randy]

Hate to break this to you but the bible, the gospels in particular, aren't about Mary. It's about Christ. It wouldn't be necessary to say "Mary Mother of <Other child> because the other child wasn't important to the text.



What other way is the word "knew" used in the bible? Like seriously when the bible says And X knew Y it's about sex. Calling it "carnal" is pointless

Odd. The Scripture seems to put great importance in the bloodline of Christ in my reading. Seems to me a blood relative would have had importance to the Jewish reader of the day. I mean the penmen went to a pretty good length showing the relation between the baptist and Christ.

 

[Stryder06]

Odd. The Scripture seems to put great importance in the bloodline of Christ in my reading. Seems to me a blood relative would have had importance to the Jewish reader of the day. I mean the penmen went to a pretty good length showing the relation between the baptist and Christ.

Great lengths? What great lengths? Mary and Martha were cousins. No need to spell that out any further. I don't recall too many texts the referred to John as His cousin, or see any place where John himself mentioned his family ties to Christ.

The only odd thing is the trouble the RCC goes through to make Mary more than what she was.

 

[Rev Randy]

Great lengths? What great lengths? Mary and Martha were cousins. No need to spell that out any further. I don't recall too many texts the referred to John as His cousin, or see any place where John himself mentioned his family ties to Christ.

The only odd thing is the trouble the RCC goes through to make Mary more than what she was.

More than what she is? I think they say she is blessed.

 

[Root of Jesse]

And I've told you before but I guess it bears repeating: You can't prove any of that. If Christ taught this to the disciples, why then does the scripture say otherwise? Why say that Joseph knew Mary if she was ever-virgin?

I knew my wife before I married her. What does that mean to you?

Another question-What did Christ teach to Paul? And another-Why does St. John tell us that all the books in the world cannot contain all that Christ said and did?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Great lengths? What great lengths? Mary and Martha were cousins. No need to spell that out any further. I don't recall too many texts the referred to John as His cousin, or see any place where John himself mentioned his family ties to Christ.

The only odd thing is the trouble the RCC goes through to make Mary more than what she was.

what does Martha have to do with this? Elizabeth is the cousin of the virgin Mary. FYI.

 

[Stryder06]

I knew my wife before I married her. What does that mean to you?

Not playing those word games. Scripture is clear of what the term "knew" means when speaking about a man and his wife. If you want to ignore that because it kills your traditional understanding, that's on you.

Another question-What did Christ teach to Paul?

The true meaning of the scriptures he had used incorrectly. All of Paul's writings are expounding upon the OT. Considering that he had been persecuting the Jews based off of what he thought he understood, it's no wonder that he would have had to have a reeducation course. It's really not that complicated.

And another-Why does St. John tell us that all the books in the world cannot contain all that Christ said and did?

Because of all that He did. What's that have to do with anything?

 

[Stryder06]

what does Martha have to do with this? Elizabeth is the cousin of the virgin Mary. FYI.

Tired this morning lol

 

[FireDragon76]

And I've told you before but I guess it bears repeating: You can't prove any of that. If Christ taught this to the disciples, why then does the scripture say otherwise? Why say that Joseph knew Mary if she was ever-virgin?

Scriptures don't say Joseph knew Mary- there are other interpretations of those passages that take into account that the use of words such as "until" are idiomatic, and not necessarily used in the same manner as you would use them today. Rather the point of the usage of the word "until" is to emphasize her virginity prior to Jesus birth, not to contradict it afterwards.

In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph go to the temple when Jesus is around 12... why doesn't it list his other brothers, if Mary was not perpetually virgin? Could it be because the other brothers listed in other parts of the Gospel are not his biological brothers, but instead are half-brothers? And why in the Gospel of John, does Jesus give Mary's care to John, and not one of his other brothers if he had them? Could it be because he had none in the flesh? The Biblical evidence supports the traditional understanding that Jesus was Mary's only child, it doesn't really refute it unless a person just wants to be overly polemical. This was the traditional belief in much of Christendom prior to modernity. Even a great many Protestants accepted it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not playing those word games. Scripture is clear of what the term "knew" means when speaking about a man and his wife. If you want to ignore that because it kills your traditional understanding, that's on you.



The true meaning of the scriptures he had used incorrectly. All of Paul's writings are expounding upon the OT. Considering that he had been persecuting the Jews based off of what he thought he understood, it's no wonder that he would have had to have a reeducation course. It's really not that complicated.

Actually, all Paul's writings were to resolve disputes in the churches at Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonika, Ephesus, Galatia, and Rome, plus 3 pastoral letters, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to a slaveowner-Philemon. He uses OT examples to make his point. Jesus manifested Himself to Paul, and did what he did, basically, with the pair of disciples on the way to Emmaus.

Because of all that He did. What's that have to do with anything?

Which means that everything Christ said, and taught are not contained in Scripture. Thanks for making my point. Proving that Scripture is not all there is to the Word of God.