Speak lovingly of Mary

[MamaZ]

God could have "rpeserved" and "point out" Christ's brothers and sisters..... and the Bible is moot about their ministry??? I wonder why? Hey I know he says we are all his brohers... So... that would mean that family was not important? NO... as he gave his mother to be "taken care" off by his disciple John... That point is told in the Bible... So that would mean that EV Mary was "alone" from her side of her family and no kids does mean no 'ordinary" marriage with Joseph... since how is it possible fo rChrist to be without "procreation" by God since he was celieband and did not apply to Mary?....

We see the ministry of James.. Have you not read the book of James? Paul even knew James was Jesus half brother..

 

[MamaZ]

The only begotten was of the Father.. Jesus was the Only begotten of the Father.. We see Jesus was Mary's firstborn son..

 

[Thekla]

firstborn = opens the womb, and does not mean more were born

brother = adelphos = many different relatioships (ex., Jacob fathered 12 brothers from 4 mothers)

 

[MamaZ]

Well since we read that Jesus was Gods only begotten Son then if this were true of Mary then We would also read that Jesus was Marys only begotten Son.. Pretty simple

 

[Thekla]

Well since we read that Jesus was Gods only begotten Son then if this were true of Mary then We would also read that Jesus was Marys only begotten Son.. Pretty simple

The "firstborn son" is the one who opens the womb and the one commanded by God to be dedicated to Him.

The Bible does not say that Mary gave birth to more; why do you go "beyond what is written" ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Bible does not say that Mary gave birth to more; why do you go "beyond what is written" ?

The Bible does not say that Mary gave birth to no more; why do you go "beyond what is written?"

And how would Mary giving birth to no more dogmatically substantiate to the highest level that Mary had no sex ever? Or are you stating that it is a verified biological FACT that every instance of intercourse results in a child specifically mentioned in the Bible?


I think you are continuing to try to "turn the tables," demanding that you don't have the "burden of proof" since you are the one with the dogma here, but rather those who have no dogma about Mary's sex life are the ones who have to substantiate their position of having no position. Friend, the insistence that Mary Had No Sex EVER is YOUR position, thus it's YOUR role to substantiate it as true. And in keeping with the point of this thread, that dogmatically informing all the world's 6.5 billion people (including kids) about how many times a loving married couple has sex (or not) as a matter of highest importance and to deny such is to be a heretic whose salvation is thereby in question is distinctively LOVING toward that couple.




.




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Have you discussed this with a Catholic Priest and/or theologian?

If so, what was said, precisely?

Well, I've read the Catechism and the companion to the Catechism, and discussed with several Catholic teachers. What I've learned is that the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is that Mary was a perpetual virgin, ie, that she never had sexual intercourse. Do you disagree with that?




Now, here are my questions about the DOGMA:

1) WHY is THIS issue SO important so as to be dogma? WHY is it an issue of highest importance that all the world's 6.5 billion of all ages knows exactly how often Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was born (if at all) and to the point of this thread, WHY is the spreading of this information distinctively LOVING toward her (the point of this thread) and a matter of such importance that is is DOGMA that must be believed or one is a heretic and their salvation in question? WHY is the frequency of loving, mutual, shared, marital intimacies SO critically important to the very highest possible level of all knowledge and belief? It is the sole subject of the dogma, and it is dogma in the RCC. Now, as I've posted, I'd be willing to chuck this all up to a severe conflict in values if all the Catholics here were posting how often they have sex with their spouse and INSISTING (to the level of dogma) that is it critically important that all the world know this information, that it is distinctively LOVING to them for this information to be dogmatically communicated to all the world's people, and that if one denies this - they are a heretic and their salvation is questionable. But (and this seems relevant to me), not only have none done so but I think there MIGHT even be an unstated slight offense that the subject would even be brought up (at all - much less as dogma, much less as a matter ALL MUST know and believe or they are heretics). IF (and I doubt the this condition is the case), IF they are offended by the very thought of me sharing with the whole world how often they have sex (or not), THEN they would at least BEGIN to understand my question (although it seems, none do).


Now, as I've posted, IF we were discussing if alchemy's central point of transubstantiation should be regarded as dogma or if we were discussing whether Mary had brown or black hair or if we were discussing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin - I suppose I wouldn't be TOO concerned. But we're talking about the sex life of my Mother. The entirely moot, intensively private, extremely personal, intimacies of my Mother - Our Blessed Lady. I love, adore, revere and in a sense worship Her. I love Her far more than my own mother or sister here. Now, if after my parents have died, you started a website and insisted on telling all the world's population (including kids) that my mother had sex 1.0 times per week on average and always in the "missionary position" - I'd have EXACTLY THE SAME ISSUES (only to a much, much less degree because I don't love my mother as much as I love Mary). I'd want to know WHY you are spreading this about my mother, WHY you regard THIS as a matter of highest importance and to deny such is to be a heretic and salvation is questionable, why THIS issue? AND I'd want to know how do you know this? I lived at home for 16 years and I don't know how often my parents have sex or how they do (and, to address the first issue, I honestly don't regard it as many of our business - much less DOGMA).


Let me TRY YET AGAIN to address it this way: I'm not married, but I have a hunch that many married couples regard what they do in bed to be private and a matter between the two of them. They do not regard such issues to be matters of public DOGMA - issues of highest importance for all the world's 6.5 billion people (including kids) to know and if they deny such they are heretics and their salvation is in question. Do you suspect I'm right about that? IN FACT (again, a hunch), I suspect that SOME (maybe not a large percentage) would even regard the mention of such (much less DOGMATIC INSISTENCE FOR ALL 6.5 BILLION PEOPLE) - even if true - to be none of our business and perhaps even offensive or embarrassing or painful. Do you think I might be right about that? IF SO, then why are the world's 1.0 billion Catholics CERTAIN TO THE LEVEL OF DOGMA that Mary has the exact OPPOSITE feeling about all this? Why they regard it as none of my business how often they have sex or when or how with their spouse, maybe even offended that I regard it as DOGMA, but they are certain to the very highest level possible that Mary is honored by it AND regards it as DISTINCTIVELY LOVING toward her (the issue of this thread)?




2) Not me, but the CATHOLIC CHURCH insists that it is a SIN (the RCC's term, not mine) to spread a report or story which is not substantiated. The issue is NOT if those spreading the story think it's true. The issue is NOT if lots believe the story or have for a long time. The issue, ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (NOT ME!) is substantiation. If it's not substantiated, it's SIN to speak of it. If it's sin toward the person, is it also LOVING toward them? (the issue of this thread). Now, we all know that all those spreading this report about Mary and Joseph never having had sex is believed by those spreading it - but that's not the issue. We all know that many (if not virtually all) Christians from the 5th century until fairly recently believed the thing true - but that's not the issue. ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (NOT ME!) the issue is singular: it's a SIN (and thus not loving) unless it is SUBSTANTIATED. Thus, I've raised the issue of substantiation. To the level of dogma. Of a nature the RCC itself accepts as valid from others.


Care to address these issues and answer my questions?




Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Thekla]

The Bible does not say that Mary gave birth to no more; why do you go "beyond what is written?"

And how would Mary giving birth to no more dogmatically substantiate to the highest level that Mary had no sex ever? Or are you stating that it is a verified biological FACT that every instance of intercourse results in a child specifically mentioned in the Bible?


I think you are continuing to try to "turn the tables," demanding that you don't have the "burden of proof" since you are the one with the dogma here, but rather those who have no dogma about Mary's sex life are the ones who have to substantiate their position of having no position. Friend, the insistence that Mary Had No Sex EVER is YOUR position, thus it's YOUR role to substantiate it as true. And in keeping with the point of this thread, that dogmatically informing all the world's 6.5 billion people (including kids) about how many times a loving married couple has sex (or not) as a matter of highest importance and to deny such is to be a heretic whose salvation is thereby in question is distinctively LOVING toward that couple.




.




.

Where do I say that this is a dogma ?

Where do I say that I adhere to Sola Scriptura ?

When Mary assented to give her flesh for the purpose of the Incarnation - to give herself completely to God, to no longer own her flesh, why do you think she would also give it to another ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

And this is exactly my point, again. Thekla's speculation isnt even talked about

In the RCC, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is Dogma, not speculation.
Therefore, the substantiation excludes speculation.

In the RCC, the Catechism states that spreading a story or report about a person is a SIN unless it is substantiated (and IMHO, thus UNLOVING - the point of this thread), it does not say that it is dogma of t he highest level of certianly and importance if Thekla has some speculation about it ( interesting as that may be).

And if I stated that it is DOGMA that Senators Clinton and Obama have a "love child" together, I doubt (but don't know) that you would not accept "speculation" on my part as dogmatic substantiation for such - and proof that if you deny such, you are a heretic and your salvation is thereby in question. Am I correct about that?




.

 

[Thekla]

To say that Mary after giving herself, her body, wholly to God and then gave her body to another is to spread the rumor that she broke her vow to God.

How is that loving ? To accuse her of so great a sin ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

To accuse her of so great a sin ?

Why do you believe that it is "so great a sin" for a married couple to share loving, mutual marital intimacies? Does the EO teach that such is a grave and great sin in the Sacrament of Marriage? IF not, then let's return to the issues at hand.




.

 

[Thekla]

Why do you believe that it is "so great a sin" for a married couple to share loving, mutual marital intimacies? Does the EO teach that such is a grave and great sin in the Sacrament of Marriage? IF not, then let's return to the issues at hand.

This IS the issue at hand - Mary's flesh, through her assent - became Christ's. Mary's flesh belonged to Christ. To give Christ's flesh to another ?
Why would you even begin to think about such a thing !!!!!!!!!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

This IS the issue at hand - Mary's flesh, through her assent - became Christ's. Mary's flesh belonged to Christ. To give Christ's flesh to another ?
Why would you even begin to think about such a thing !!!!!!!!!

My human nature comes from my mother and father. Could you explain to me how that proves that they are perpetual virgins?




Now, here are my questions about the DOGMA, at least as taught by the RCC:

1) WHY is THIS issue SO important so as to be dogma? WHY is it an issue of highest importance that all the world's 6.5 billion of all ages knows exactly how often Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was born (if at all) and to the point of this thread, WHY is the spreading of this information distinctively LOVING toward her (the point of this thread) and a matter of such importance that is is DOGMA that must be believed or one is a heretic and their salvation in question? WHY is the frequency of loving, mutual, shared, marital intimacies SO critically important to the very highest possible level of all knowledge and belief? It is the sole subject of the dogma, and it is dogma in the RCC. Now, as I've posted, I'd be willing to chuck this all up to a severe conflict in values if all the Catholics here were posting how often they have sex with their spouse and INSISTING (to the level of dogma) that is it critically important that all the world know this information, that it is distinctively LOVING to them for this information to be dogmatically communicated to all the world's people, and that if one denies this - they are a heretic and their salvation is questionable. But (and this seems relevant to me), not only have none done so but I think there MIGHT even be an unstated slight offense that the subject would even be brought up (at all - much less as dogma, much less as a matter ALL MUST know and believe or they are heretics). IF (and I doubt the this condition is the case), IF they are offended by the very thought of me sharing with the whole world how often they have sex (or not), THEN they would at least BEGIN to understand my question (although it seems, none do).


Now, as I've posted, IF we were discussing if alchemy's central point of transubstantiation should be regarded as dogma or if we were discussing whether Mary had brown or black hair or if we were discussing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin - I suppose I wouldn't be TOO concerned. But we're talking about the sex life of my Mother. The entirely moot, intensively private, extremely personal, intimacies of my Mother - Our Blessed Lady. I love, adore, revere and in a sense worship Her. I love Her far more than my own mother or sister here. Now, if after my parents have died, you started a website and insisted on telling all the world's population (including kids) that my mother had sex 1.0 times per week on average and always in the "missionary position" - I'd have EXACTLY THE SAME ISSUES (only to a much, much less degree because I don't love my mother as much as I love Mary). I'd want to know WHY you are spreading this about my mother, WHY you regard THIS as a matter of highest importance and to deny such is to be a heretic and salvation is questionable, why THIS issue? AND I'd want to know how do you know this? I lived at home for 16 years and I don't know how often my parents have sex or how they do (and, to address the first issue, I honestly don't regard it as many of our business - much less DOGMA).


Let me TRY YET AGAIN to address it this way: I'm not married, but I have a hunch that many married couples regard what they do in bed to be private and a matter between the two of them. They do not regard such issues to be matters of public DOGMA - issues of highest importance for all the world's 6.5 billion people (including kids) to know and if they deny such they are heretics and their salvation is in question. Do you suspect I'm right about that? IN FACT (again, a hunch), I suspect that SOME (maybe not a large percentage) would even regard the mention of such (much less DOGMATIC INSISTENCE FOR ALL 6.5 BILLION PEOPLE) - even if true - to be none of our business and perhaps even offensive or embarrassing or painful. Do you think I might be right about that? IF SO, then why are the world's 1.0 billion Catholics CERTAIN TO THE LEVEL OF DOGMA that Mary has the exact OPPOSITE feeling about all this? Why they regard it as none of my business how often they have sex or when or how with their spouse, maybe even offended that I regard it as DOGMA, but they are certain to the very highest level possible that Mary is honored by it AND regards it as DISTINCTIVELY LOVING toward her (the issue of this thread)?




2) Not me, but the CATHOLIC CHURCH insists that it is a SIN (the RCC's term, not mine) to spread a report or story which is not substantiated. The issue is NOT if those spreading the story think it's true. The issue is NOT if lots believe the story or have for a long time. The issue, ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (NOT ME!) is substantiation. If it's not substantiated, it's SIN to speak of it. If it's sin toward the person, is it also LOVING toward them? (the issue of this thread). Now, we all know that all those spreading this report about Mary and Joseph never having had sex is believed by those spreading it - but that's not the issue. We all know that many (if not virtually all) Christians from the 5th century until fairly recently believed the thing true - but that's not the issue. ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (NOT ME!) the issue is singular: it's a SIN (and thus not loving) unless it is SUBSTANTIATED. Thus, I've raised the issue of substantiation. To the level of dogma. Of a nature the RCC itself accepts as valid from others.


.

 

[Thekla]

You are NOT CHRIST !!!!!!!

His flesh came only from His mother; her flesh was now His !
Whatever she did to her flesh, she did to Christ's flesh.

Why do you even speak in such a manner - do you love your own words more than Christ ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

His flesh came only from His mother; her flesh was now His !
Whatever she did to her flesh, she did to Christ's flesh.

My flesh came only from my mother and father.
How does that give dogmatic substantiation that therefore they are both perpetual virgins?





.

 

[boswd]

Even Martin Luther had much much more respect and honor for Mary.

 

[Thekla]

My flesh came only from my mother and father.
How does that give dogmatic substantiation that therefore they are both perpetual virgins?

YOU ARE NOT CHRIST ?

why do you extrapolate from yourself to Him ???

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I love, adore, revere and worship Mary.
I love her more than my own mother or sister. Much more.
It's WHY I think respect is deserved to her.

IF years after my parents death, someone came along and insisted - as a matter of highest possible importance for all to know and to deny such is to be a heretic whose salvation is thereby in question - that my parents always has sex in the "missionary position" I'd have the exact same issues (only to a MUCH less degree of concern, since I love Mary more than my earthly parents). As their son, BECAUSE (B.E.C.A.U.S.E.) I love them, I'd want to know WHY they are obessesed with this singular, specific issue of my parents surpremely private, extremely intimate aspect of their marriage, to the point of dogma. I'd want to know how they know this to be a fact of greatest certainty (I lived at home for 16 years, and I don't what positions they use(d) if any, and frankly don't want to know), and if they have some permission from my parents to share this as a matter of greatest importance to all the world's 6.5 billion people (including children). Now, if I didn't care about my parents, if I didn't love t hem, if I didn't respect them - I guess I'd just let anyone say anything they want about them and would care less.


As I've posted, IF we were discussing if Aristotles debunked theory of accidents is DOGMA or IF 2 million angels can fit on the head of a pin but not one more, I wouldn't be particularely concerned. But this is entirely and solely about the sex life of my Mother. That makes a difference to ME. BECAUSE I love and respect her. B.E.C.A.U.S.E. I love Her.






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

My flesh came only from my mother and father.
How does that give dogmatic substantiation that therefore they are both perpetual virgins?

YOU ARE NOT CHRIST ?

No, I"m not Christ.

Care to answer my question?



.

 

[MamaZ]

I think that a biology lesson is in order really..