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

[Stryder06]

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.

Problem, as I explained it to ROJ, is that the word used is not "until" but "till", which you may want to consider is inconsequential, but it does matter. I provided him with several verses that show the proper use of "until" as defining an action up to a point, and "till" which defines an action which took place after the fulfillment of something.

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.

Or maybe, just maybe, it isn't mentioned because they weren't there? His brothers and sisters are mentioned when they need to be mentioned.

Even a great many Protestants accepted it.

Doesn't make it true

 

[Stryder06]

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.

What were his letters to those churches doing? What were their disputes over? And I wasn't thinking about his personal letters to Timothy or the one for Philemon, and even those hold principles based in the scriptures which he had at the time.

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.

I don't think I ever said that scripture contains all that Jesus said or taught. What I maintain is that scripture is all we need when it comes to what He said and taught, and is what we use to discern true doctrine from false doctrine.

There very well could be other things He showed His disciples. If He did, it was obviously for them only. What the church needed was given to through the written word of God.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...
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

Well, how about this verse (Genesis 28:16) And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the LORD is in this place; and I knew it not. And there are many many more that use "knew" in similar ways.

If you can find a verse where Joseph is said to "know" Mary in that carnal way - and I use carnal as meaning of the flesh (like when one has sex because one's body is what one uses when one has sex ) - then kindly produce it. We are still waiting.

 

[FireDragon76]

Or maybe, just maybe, it isn't mentioned because they weren't there? His brothers and sisters are mentioned when they need to be mentioned.

It doesn't explain why Jesus gave Mary's care to John rather than to them, which would be much more in keeping with Jewish traditions. It would be insulting to hand Mary over to someone outside Jesus family, if he had other brothers to take care of her.

I do not think anybody is necessarily going to hell for doubting Mary's perpetual virginity. I just think it goes against a received tradition for no good reason, which is why it emerged mostly among strongly anti-Catholic protestant sects. And at that point, a person needs to show why they are causing division within the Church or whether perhaps their conscience is not adequately formed in this matter. Individualism for no good reason is hardly conducive to the developement of virtue and contradicts Jesus prayer that we all be one.

I do not necessarily understand Mary's Ever-Virginity as some kind of theological statement about sexuality or marriage in general, for me it is just a sign of her singular uniqueness as the Mother of God.

 

[Albion]

It doesn't explain why Jesus gave Mary's care to John rather than to them, which would be much more in keeping with Jewish traditions. It would be insulting to hand Mary over to someone outside Jesus family, if he had other brothers to take care of her.

It would seem so. HOWEVER, this may be the very reason that this incident is recorded in scripture--because it was NOT the usual way of doing things.

Christ had some reason for saying this, but we can only speculate on what that was. If Mary were going to pass to the care of one of Jesus' brothers, though, it wouldn't be anything to draw attention to.

What's more, we aren't certain that he was referring to placing Mary in John's care. There are other ways of understanding the meaning of what Jesus said here.

 

[Stryder06]

Well, how about this verse (Genesis 28:16) And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the LORD is in this place; and I knew it not. And there are many many more that use "knew" in similar ways.

You guys love your word games. It's really sad to see you play the ignorant card as if you don't know what is being said.

If you can find a verse where Joseph is said to "know" Mary in that carnal way - and I use carnal as meaning of the flesh (like when one has sex because one's body is what one uses when one has sex ) - then kindly produce it. We are still waiting.

It's been produced. You acting like you don't know what it's saying is a problem I can't address.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...
It's been produced. You acting like you don't know what it's saying is a problem I can't address.

Where?

 

[Stryder06]

It doesn't explain why Jesus gave Mary's care to John rather than to them, which would be much more in keeping with Jewish traditions. It would be insulting to hand Mary over to someone outside Jesus family, if he had other brothers to take care of her.

First, I doubt Jesus was worried about Jewish tradition, given He was dying because of Jewish tradition. Second, ever consider the fact that Jesus just knew John would do a better job of caring for her?

I do not think anybody is necessarily going to hell for doubting Mary's perpetual virginity.

You don't think?

I just think it goes against a received tradition for no good reason, which is why it emerged mostly among strongly anti-Catholic protestant sects. And at that point, a person needs to show why they are causing division within the Church or whether perhaps their conscience is not adequately formed in this matter. Individualism for no good reason is hardly conducive to the developement of virtue and contradicts Jesus prayer that we all be one.

Let me ask you this, just hypothetically, let's say you received the proof you needed that Mary wasn't ever-virgin. Again this is hypothetical. But if you received the proof that you needed, how would that affect your understanding of ever Marion apparition that has been seen?

 

[Stryder06]

Where?

Matt 1:25

 

[Root of Jesse]

I don't think I ever said that scripture contains all that Jesus said or taught. What I maintain is that scripture is all we need when it comes to what He said and taught, and is what we use to discern true doctrine from false doctrine.

There very well could be other things He showed His disciples. If He did, it was obviously for them only. What the church needed was given to through the written word of God.

So then why do you folks limit yourself to Scripture? There's more to the Word of God than Scripture. Sacred Tradition provides context to Scripture, and makes clear those parts of Scripture that aren't already. Like Mary's perpetual virginity.

If your last statement is true, who determined "what the Church needed"?

Actually, what is Scripture is what is proper to be read in Liturgy...

Look at it from modern teaching technique. The teacher has the student read the textbook. =Scripture
Then the teacher, the authority, either before reading or after reading, provides context for what the student reads. = Magisterium and Sacred Tradition.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Matt 1:25

(Matthew 1:25) And he knew her not, yet she bore her son, the firstborn. And he called his name JESUS.

I am sure that the KJV might say something a little different but no matter what translation I go to not one of them says "Joseph knew Mary" in any verse in any passage in the bible.

 

[FireDragon76]

Christ had some reason for saying this, but we can only speculate on what that was. If Mary were going to pass to the care of one of Jesus' brothers, though, it wouldn't be anything to draw attention to.

Unless the early church were interested in Mary. And there is alot of evidence that is the case, besides the presence of Marian devotion later. There are hymns about Mary in Syriac (Aramaic) dating to the second century that already identify her as the "compassionate mother". The idea that devotion to the Virgin Mary can be reduced to pagan goddess worship that was syncretized is debunked in the book Mary for Evangelicals by Tim Perry (who is a Presbyterian minister who bases his work on his own independent research).

The Bible was not written down so us moderns could act like we had grabbed hold of a time capsule preserving historical data to reconstruct into "what actually happened". The Gospels were written down so a living communal tradition could read them in their own time, as well. A community that had living oral memories and stories that they shared, and the Gospel writers often choose to frame the stories to answer their questions more than they do to answer ours.

 

[Root of Jesse]

(Matthew 1:25) And he knew her not, yet she bore her son, the firstborn. And he called his name JESUS.

I am sure that the KJV might say something a little different but no matter what translation I go to not one of them says "Joseph knew Mary" in any verse in any passage in the bible.

Their argument is sorta like "Full of Grace" and "O Highly Favored One"...like it changes something...

 

[Stryder06]

So then why do you folks limit yourself to Scripture? There's more to the Word of God than Scripture. Sacred Tradition provides context to Scripture, and makes clear those parts of Scripture that aren't already. Like Mary's perpetual virginity.

Dude, I'm Adventist I find great value in the writings of EGW. That said it's not about "limiting" oneself to scripture. It's about testing all things and holding fast to that which is true. You don't look at scripture through the lens of tradition. You look at tradition through the lens of scripture.

If your last statement is true, who determined "what the Church needed"?

God.

Actually, what is Scripture is what is proper to be read in Liturgy...

Nope. Scripture is the written word of God, preserved by the working of the Holy Spirit.

Look at it from modern teaching technique. The teacher has the student read the textbook. =Scripture
Then the teacher, the authority, either before reading or after reading, provides context for what the student reads. = Magisterium and Sacred Tradition.

Yeah, and some teachers get it wrong. Some text books get it wrong. Sadly your analogy doens't work because the only ultimate authority when it comes to learning scripture is God. Men get it wrong all the time, and will continue to until (no pun intended) the end of time.

 

[Rev Randy]

(Matthew 1:25) And he knew her not, yet she bore her son, the firstborn. And he called his name JESUS.

I am sure that the KJV might say something a little different but no matter what translation I go to not one of them says "Joseph knew Mary" in any verse in any passage in the bible.

Oh that darn "not" word seems to get in the way. Maybe he used some white-out?

 

[MrLuther]

Then there's also a bleeding Eucharist miracle that was scientifically tested. The Eucharist fell to the floor, where it began to bleed. Testing was positive for a damaged human heart...

Pics (or in this case: Links to the alleged "scientific" investigation), or it didn't happen.

The question that should be asked here isn't "is it supernatural?", because that isn't the main issue. The question that should be asked is: "Does it focus our attention on Christ, or on someone or something else (Mary, miscellaneous saints, etc)?"

Even satan can, as we learn from Scripture, appear as an angel of light.

And I'm surprised that someone who claims to be Lutheran can so implicitly put his faith in alleged "miracles". What, are we going to be asked to take the whole "gold dust from the ceiling"-thing that some pentecostals have got going on seriously as well?

Look for Christ in the Word, and in the Sacraments. That's where He has PROMISED us He is. Don't go running around like decapitated chicken, seeking the Lord in the storm. He isn't there.

 

[Stryder06]

(Matthew 1:25) And he knew her not, yet she bore her son, the firstborn. And he called his name JESUS.

I am sure that the KJV might say something a little different but no matter what translation I go to not one of them says "Joseph knew Mary" in any verse in any passage in the bible.

It says it a lot different, but since you cherish your modern translations so:

NLT - But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.

NAV - but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

EXV - but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

ISV - He did not have marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son; and he named him Jesus

ERV - and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS.

This verse clearly shows that Joseph did what married men do with their wives once she had given birth to Christ. I'm not sure which version you're using, but all the ones I see have not seen fit to remove the word "unitl/till" from the translation. It's amazing how the removal of a single word can completely change the meaning. You said the version you're using is the one approved by the Catholic church right? I can see why they like that one.

 

[MrLuther]

(Matthew 1:25) And he knew her not, yet she bore her son, the firstborn. And he called his name JESUS.

I am sure that the KJV might say something a little different but no matter what translation I go to not one of them says "Joseph knew Mary" in any verse in any passage in the bible.

1: What it ACTUALLY says is: "καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν: καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν."
"[And] he did not know her, until she gave birth to [actually: "Bore", but in the context, "gave birth to" is clearer] a son: And he called his name Jesus"

ἕως is either a clear temporal conjunction, or, when it carries the gentive, as it does here in the following, functions as a preposition. In both cases, the meaning is limited in time: "Until", "till", "up to", etc.
In no way and under no circumstances is it an adversative conjunction. I do not know what translation you used above, but it is a clear mistranslation. The text simply does not say it.

2: There isn't any passage in the Bible that says: "And Jesus went forth to a bush that was nearby, but indeed away, and he did relieve himself". Nor does it mention every single time Jesus ate something.....
Your point, that it doesn't say that Joseph "knew" Mary after Jesus was born, is true, but also wildly irrelevant unless you also don't think that Jesus (or any other biblical figure, for that matter) ate, or slept, or, pardon my French, relieved Himself, except for the times the Bible mentions this.

In fact....I can't recall the Bible saying anything ANYWHERE about ANYONE relieving themselves.... That's a massive constipation! No wonder some of them were a little cranky

 

[FireDragon76]

MrLuther, your flaw in your thinking is assuming that marriage is the norm and celibacy some kind of abberation. Throughout Christian history, both marital union and celibacy have been considered holy. So why assume that Mary was not celibate? Some protestants are reading their own anti-celibacy assumptions into the text.

Using this kind of logic... Protestants should encourage their children to have sexual intercourse, even if it is through marriage, as soon as possible, in order to be normal. And yet, they don't really believe this is a good thing to do in practice, even if they frown on Catholic esteem of celibacy. Hence your objection to Mary's perpetual virginity rests merely on prejudice against Catholicism.

 

[Stryder06]

1: What it ACTUALLY says is: "καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν: καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν."
"[And] he did not know her, until she gave birth to [actually: "Bore", but in the context, "gave birth to" is clearer] a son: And he called his name Jesus"

ἕως is either a clear temporal conjunction, or, when it carries the gentive, as it does here in the following, functions as a preposition. In both cases, the meaning is limited in time: "Until", "till", "up to", etc.
In no way and under no circumstances is it an adversative conjunction. I do not know what translation you used above, but it is a clear mistranslation. The text simply does not say it.

2: There isn't any passage in the Bible that says: "And Jesus went forth to a bush that was nearby, but indeed away, and he did relieve himself". Nor does it mention every single time Jesus ate something.....
Your point, that it doesn't say that Joseph "knew" Mary after Jesus was born, is true, but also wildly irrelevant unless you also don't think that Jesus (or any other biblical figure, for that matter) ate, or slept, or, pardon my French, relieved Himself, except for the times the Bible mentions this.

In fact....I can't recall the Bible saying anything ANYWHERE about ANYONE relieving themselves.... That's a massive constipation! No wonder some of them were a little cranky

Glad I'm not the only person who thought of this in regards to what wasn't said