Mary Sinless?

[bbbbbbb]

you are defending the traditional family while making Jesus' family even more disfunctional than it had to be in the first place.

Also.. in Jewish tradition... Aren't you not actually married until you have sex with the person?

Thus, if Mary & Joseph never had sex, then they were never actually married...

Actually, this is also true in Catholicism. There are some who say and believe that Mary and Joseph never were married at all.

It is possible to get a marriage annulled in the Catholic Church if one can prove that the marriage was not consummated. About twenty years ago Ted Kennedy wanted to divorce his wife and have the marriage annulled. Her reponse was, "After bearing his six children you can tell me that the marriage was not consummated or that I am a common harlot."

 

[bbbbbbb]

And I'm glad you mentioned the Assumption. I was just thinking the other day about this. Obviously, the story of Elijah shows that it is possible for God to take someone into Heaven without them having to die first. So, it's totally feasible that this happened to Mary as well. The problem is that we get back into the idea that it's not explicitly stated in Scripture. That doesn't mean it didn't happen though.

Yeah, and it doesn't mean that Mary and Joseph had ninety-two children, of which four sons are directly named in scripture. All things are possible, but not all things are reasonable.

 

[Kat8765]

Actually, if you look at two of the men who were called brothers, James and Joseph, scripture tells us that these two men were the sons of another Mary.

Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Matt 27:56

Also Mark 15:40-47 , shows this relationship. So this proves that "brother" doesn't exactly mean blood brothers.

 

[calluna]

An excellent question, indeed, Where do Catholics get all their righteous indignation at the very thought that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations? You are spot on with your reference to the Catholic Catechism, which is exactly why I raised this question. Time and time again Catholics have risen up to defend the sinlessness and purity of Mary by attacking the very idea that she and Joseph were happily married in every sense of the word. So, if marital relations are not sinful, then why in the world does it make a scintilla of difference if Mary and Joseph had them?

'One Hail Mary well said fills the heart of Our Lady with delight and obtains for us indescribably great graces.'

Because 'Mary' is actually God to Catholics. Through abuse of the Trinity teaching, She (note capitalisation) supplants the Father, and is superior to the Son by virtue of seniority by transfer of human relationships to a tritheism. So any human, physical entanglements, other than to Jesus, are to be denied categorically, irrespective of evidence.

The cross of Christ is obviated by this means of 'Mary', which leaves Catholics completely unjustified, unsanctified and, if sincere, in a state of perpetual uncertainty about justification and salvation. It leaves them at the mercy of priests and needing to keep good relationships with them, and with the political forces that lie behind the papacy. Roman Catholicism is a means of totalitarian political control, one that Hitler openly admitted to learning from.

http://my.homewithgod.com/israel/mary/

Apologies for the tastelessness.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Actually, if you look at two of the men who were called brothers, James and Joseph, scripture tells us that these two men were the sons of another Mary.

Has it not occured to you that there might be more than one individual named James or Joseph, even as there are several Marys in the Bible? The fact that another Mary had two sons which she named James and Joseph does not obviate the fact that two of the brothers named in the gospels as being brothers of Jesus Christ are also named James and Joseph.

Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Matt 27:56

Also Mark 15:40-47 , shows this relationship. So this proves that "brother" doesn't exactly mean blood brothers.

At this point you have put forth an old argument that was long ago disproven on another thread in the Mariology forum.

 

[Kat8765]

Sure it has occured to me but why would there just be random James and Josephs mentioned throughout? There would be no reason for it. Let's look at this verse.

"Many women were also there, looking on from a distance; they had followed Jesus from Galilee and had provided for him. Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee." - Matthew 27:55-56

The James and Joseph here would clearly have the be the same ones mentioned as brothers to Jesus in Matthew 13:55. Why would Matthew not have referred to the Mary here as Jesus' mother if that's who she was?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Sure it has occured to me but why would there just be random James and Josephs mentioned throughout? There would be no reason for it. Let's look at this verse.

"Many women were also there, looking on from a distance; they had followed Jesus from Galilee and had provided for him. Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee." - Matthew 27:55-56

The James and Joseph here would clearly have the be the same ones mentioned as brothers to Jesus in Matthew 13:55. Why would Matthew not have referred to the Mary here as Jesus' mother if that's who she was?

Why would there be random Marys mentioned throughout? The only reason I can think of is that there were several ladies named Mary and they were sometimes differentiated from each other as, for example, May Magdalene.

In a similar way, I think Matthew makes the point earlier in his gospel that the brothers of Jesus were these four individuals. If, in fact, these same individuals were the sons of this other Mary, then Matthew would surely have listed their names here, rather than the two names only in addition to stating that this was the same, aforementioned Mary. I think the point he was making was that this other Mary is distinct from Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, because she only had two sons, James and Joseph. It is quite clear in the other passage that it is Mary the mother of Jesus, who is with His brothers and sisters. If two of these brothers were really sons of an aunt Mary, then Mary was the sister of Mary, which is really quite absurd.

 

[Kat8765]

I respect what you are trying to say but there is no proof that Mary had other children. I also don't expect you to understand my point of view either. I do see were the arguement can be made. Why would they not have other children? Well, I believe I believe that the circumstances of the Mary and Joseph's marriage were so extraordinary that you can't expect them to be an ordinary couple. I believe that Mary had given herself completely to God, that she never expected to be married at all. After Jesus was born she still wanted to uphold that vow to remain completely faithful to our Lord, which I believe she did.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

calluna;

Because 'Mary' is actually God to Catholics.

False and inflamitory post.

The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary is God, nor do they worship Mary as God.

The rest is not worth responding to.

Jim

 

[MoNiCa4316]

'One Hail Mary well said fills the heart of Our Lady with delight and obtains for us indescribably great graces.'

Because 'Mary' is actually God to Catholics. Through abuse of the Trinity teaching, She (note capitalisation) supplants the Father, and is superior to the Son by virtue of seniority by transfer of human relationships to a tritheism. So any human, physical entanglements, other than to Jesus, are to be denied categorically, irrespective of evidence.

The cross of Christ is obviated by this means of 'Mary', which leaves Catholics completely unjustified, unsanctified and, if sincere, in a state of perpetual uncertainty about justification and salvation. It leaves them at the mercy of priests and needing to keep good relationships with them, and with the political forces that lie behind the papacy. Roman Catholicism is a means of totalitarian political control, one that Hitler openly admitted to learning from.

http://my.homewithgod.com/israel/mary/

Apologies for the tastelessness.

I don't think even one thing in this post reflects actual Catholic teaching..

 

[Kat8765]

Because 'Mary' is actually God to Catholics. Through abuse of the Trinity teaching, She (note capitalisation) supplants the Father, and is superior to the Son by virtue of seniority by transfer of human relationships to a tritheism. So any human, physical entanglements, other than to Jesus, are to be denied categorically, irrespective of evidence.

The cross of Christ is obviated by this means of 'Mary', which leaves Catholics completely unjustified, unsanctified and, if sincere, in a state of perpetual uncertainty about justification and salvation. It leaves them at the mercy of priests and needing to keep good relationships with them, and with the political forces that lie behind the papacy. Roman Catholicism is a means of totalitarian political control, one that Hitler openly admitted to learning from.






What if us Catholics started blaming you Protestants for neglecting Jesus because of your devotion to the Bible. I mean you have Bible churches and schools instead of Christian ones. You have no pictures of Jesus or of the stations of the cross in your church, only a huge puplit the focuses on the Bible. And, the main feature of your church is not even the Lord's Supper, it's a Bible sermon. You declare your undying love for the Bible and claim that no one can come to know Jesus without it.

Sounds kind of ridiculous doesn't it. I heard this arguement on Catholic radio a while back, and I think it shows how Catholics are treated when Protestants make similarly inaccurate claims about Marion devotions.

 

[calluna]

What if us Catholics started blaming you Protestants for neglecting Jesus because of your devotion to the Bible.

That's fine. If only more Protestants would actually read the Bible, and take due note of it, the world would surely be a better place. But from first page to last, the Bible is about Christ, and it is devotion to Christ that Bible reading should lead to. Protestants don't believe that they neglect Jesus, because they do not believe that there is a change of substance in bread or wine. Jesus exists in human motives, they say, and He is shown in daily actions and speech.

You have no pictures of Jesus

There are pictures, particularly for children, but nobody knows what Jesus looked like (and no artist makes him look like the Semitic artisan he was taken for). But it is not Jesus' looks that he is valued for, but his words, as he himself said was to be the case. One sees Jesus in one's fellow saints, in the way they behave.

or of the stations of the cross in your church,

Those are not mentioned in the Bible.

only a huge puplit the focuses on the Bible.

I think it focuses on the cleric, more. It is not very Christian, imv. Many Protestants meet in their homes these days, with everyone getting the best chair they can find! Sometimes the preacher sits on the floor!

And, the main feature of your church is not even the Lord's Supper, it's a Bible sermon.

There are usually both. Protestants believe that eating and drinking is a reminder, a reminder that people are 'bought with a price', and are to live for Jesus, not self. And that is really what sermons are for, too, so they are just different ways of reaching the same goal.

You declare your undying love for the Bible and claim that no one can come to know Jesus without it.

That's not the case at all, really. People are converted without reading or hearing the Bible, by hearing or reading a gospel message, or just by talking to a Christian. Some wonderful Christians in the USSR lived and died without ever reading a Bible. Of course the gospel message is got from the Bible.

I heard this arguement on Catholic radio a while back, and I think it shows how Catholics are treated when Protestants make similarly inaccurate claims about Marion devotions

How are these claims about Catholicism inaccurate?

 

[Kat8765]

I'm actually glad you tried to make an arguement out of this even though I wasn't actually saying any of this about Protestants. I was just trying to prove a point. It's frustrating when people accuse you and your Chruch of things that are simply not true. It's equally dumb to claim Protestants are Bible worshipers as it is to claim that Catholics are Mary worshipers. Catholics believe that Mary as well as the Bible, helps strengthen our relationship with Jesus. Do you have proof that Catholics worship Mary? Have you read anything in Catholic Doctrine that would lead you to believe this?

 

[calluna]

Do you have proof that Catholics worship Mary?

Of course Catholics don't realise that they worship 'Mary', but they treat 'Mary' in the same way that Jesus is to be treated.They call her their advocate, the agent of grace, the channel through which forgiveness is given. But they never get forgiven; they are always lighting candles and pleading, and never have any assurance of faith. Jesus is someone they hope to get to meet in the hereafter, but it is too late then. See the link http://my.homewithgod.com/israel/mary/ provided. Also this:

'Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us and after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.'

That is really dreadful. The saints are not banished! The saints, all Christians, already have their citizenship in heaven.

Jesus has his kingdom, Mary does not have one, and unless one has Jesus as one's king, one is simply not going to be saved.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Sure it has occured to me but why would there just be random James and Josephs mentioned throughout? There would be no reason for it. Let's look at this verse.

"Many women were also there, looking on from a distance; they had followed Jesus from Galilee and had provided for him. Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee." - Matthew 27:55-56

The James and Joseph here would clearly have the be the same ones mentioned as brothers to Jesus in Matthew 13:55. Why would Matthew not have referred to the Mary here as Jesus' mother if that's who she was?

but why would they call the Mary who is mother of James & Joseph Jesus' mother in Matthew 13??

That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I respect what you are trying to say but there is no proof that Mary had other children. I also don't expect you to understand my point of view either. I do see were the arguement can be made. Why would they not have other children? Well, I believe I believe that the circumstances of the Mary and Joseph's marriage were so extraordinary that you can't expect them to be an ordinary couple. I believe that Mary had given herself completely to God, that she never expected to be married at all. After Jesus was born she still wanted to uphold that vow to remain completely faithful to our Lord, which I believe she did.

Not one word of that is substantiated by Scripture...

and not one word of that means that she couldn't have sex with Joseph...

 

[Kat8765]

but why would they call the Mary who is mother of James & Joseph Jesus' mother in Matthew 13??

That doesn't make any sense at all.

Sorry, I meant matt 27.

 

[Kat8765]

Not one word of that is substantiated by Scripture...

and not one word of that means that she couldn't have sex with Joseph...

I back up my beliefs with the Bible, what the church teaches and with the teaching of the early church fathers. Sacred tradition is part of the Catholic Church and I know it is hard to use this when you are having a discussion with someone who uses only the Bible. I'm sure we could go on with this discussion forever without either one of us budging.

I do want to say thanks for the challenge though. I am a fairly new Catholic so it's nice to be challenged on issues such as these. I think it strengthens my faith!

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Just like the Bible leads us closer to Christ, Mary leads us closer to Him also.

The more devoted we are to Mary, the more we learn how to love God, because she teaches us. She loves God completely.

Also devotion to Mary helps develop humility.

We don't worship Mary, and we don't believe that forgiveness comes from her, or that she saves us. But we do believe that she leads us closer to the One who does. Because she brought Him into the world so that we could be saved.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I back up my beliefs with the Bible, what the church teaches and with the teaching of the early church fathers. Sacred tradition is part of the Catholic Church and I know it is hard to use this when you are having a discussion with someone who uses only the Bible. I'm sure we could go on with this discussion forever without either one of us budging.

I do want to say thanks for the challenge though. I am a fairly new Catholic so it's nice to be challenged on issues such as these. I think it strengthens my faith!

The problem is that that "sacred tradition" goes against the teachings in the Bible that all humans have fallen.

The most intersting thing about the whole discussion on Mary's virginity, however, is that no one discussed it until well after everyone who could have known her or Jesus or someone who knew her or Jesus had died...

If we were suppose to make such a big deal about Mary's virginity throughout her life, why wouldn't Paul or Peter say something about it in their writings early on?