There's something about Mary.......

[Livindesert]

nm

 

[JCFantasy23]

Okay, you've quoted showing that Mary was a virgin before the birth of Christ. Now quote the one where it says that she lost her virginity to Joseph.

Well I do take the scripture I posted as indicating she lost her virginity to Joseph afterward.

When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.
Matt 1:18 (ESV)
24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
Matt 1:24-25 (ESV)

None of these scriptures worded it as he never knew her at all, but that he never knew her until after Christ's birth.

It doesn't say he never "knew her", but they he didn't know her "until" after the birth.

7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths
Luke 2:7 (ESV)

Firstborn can indicate it's her first child and more were to follow. Jesus was not called her only son or her only child.

They asked. "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" (Matt. 13:54-56).

I don't believe this means cousins, but I believe brothers, Mary's other children.

I am a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my own mother's sons; for zeal for your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you fall on me (Psa. 69:8,9).

They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers (Acts 1:14).

I've read arguments about these verses and to me they seem to be far-fetching. There's plenty more scripture to mention Jesus having brothers, sisters, and his mother and Joseph. I've never seen scripture in the bible stating Mary always remained a virgin, however.

You don't have to read all of the threads, most of them are pretty much the same. But if you don't understand what the Church has taught for 2,000 years then you will simply remain in ignorance and instead "lean on your own understanding" of what you think Scripture says.

I think we are given the bible to read, and I think a lot of it is pretty clear-cut.

The above scriptures seem reasonable to me. I follow the bible and now men's teachings of it that seem contradictory.

Suffice to say, you haven't discovered some shocking new passage in Scripture that was long lost. It was the position maintained by the heretic Helvidius, notably opposed by St. Jerome in his work on the Virginity of Mary: Against Helvidius (The Perpetual Virginity of Mary). As I quoted earlier (I believe in this thread), even all of the major Protestant reformers (e.g. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley, Cranmer) called Helvidius a "idiot" or a "fool" for supposing such a thing, Cranmer even calls it an addition contrary to Scripture and says that anyone who proposes such a thing is a member of the Antichrist.

I never claimed to find long-lost scripture. Anyone who disagreed with the church back then was labeled a heretic, but some of them knew what they were talking about and dared to disagree IMO.

So you might do well to actually listen to the majority viewpoint before you simply declare something true based on your own personal opinion.

It's not a personal opinion I pulled out of thin air, but out of scripture.

 

[GailMc]

Dear JCFantasy, you state this:

This always bugged me too. Their having sexual relation afterward is certainly not a sin but actually celebrating the blessing of marriage God gave them, the purity of the act within the marriage between the two people God joined together. To remain celibate seems the opposite to me. I see plenty of scripture indicating they did, indeed, have sexual relation afterwards. And there is no reason why they would not have.

When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.
Matt 1:18 (ESV)

24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
Matt 1:24-25 (ESV)

I'm sure the above scriptures have been posted and different viewpoints given on them, but I don't have the time nor the inclination to read every post in all these pages. It seems pretty clear to me just from those two in the beginning of Matthew.

But of course she was a virgin when she was pregnant with our Saviour.

to which I'll say this - has it ever occured to you that those who use soem Scriptures to try and claim that Mary didn't remain a Virgin after God's birth are actually bearing false witness against God and those with Him? They did eventually Crucify Him, didn't they? If you read the full accounts in the Bible you will get a bigger picture then one or two lines taken out of context and twisted to help you deny some basic facts about God and His Mother. Funky thing about it too one of the very accusations against Him towards the end of His life here was blasphemy, the very thing that those who use these same Scriptures to infer that Mary and St. Jospeh had conjugal relations do when the try to take away the Incarnation of God in Mary's womb by denying she was a virgin before her pregnancy, during her pregnancy and after her pregancy and remain so till she passed from this life to Heaven. Oh dear! Have I gone to far in a catholic direction for you to understand? Hope not.

Peace and all good,

Gail

P.S. If you'd like to totally give up fighting the Spirit, perhaps you should admit it is a big sin to continue to speak against God's Mother and take it to a Confessional. Or stay sickened in sin. Choice is yours.

 

[GailMc]

Hey ther clint25n! you state this:

Mary was obedient, but that is not why we can go to Heaven as you stated. God knows the future and if she wasn't going to be obedient, He would have chose another.

And, woah rape? What are you talking about, lol?




I'm not saying that Mary had to sin. We all have sinned. The point was that Mary is a human being, a sinner, and needs forgiveness like us all. I was trying to show you that you are elevating a human too high.




Yea, but you pray to her, and you think she is omnipotent. That's a little more than some minor praising wouldn't ya say??.............You say that you don't worship Mary, but that fact is, you do.

You have made a choice for yourself and that is to never pray to Mary. Then stop praying to God because where He is She is and when you pray to Him you also are being heard by everyone else in Heaven. Don't want them listening and helping you?!? then continue to pray to the only God you know. You deny too much when you limit yourself to praying only to Jesus. Want others to join you? That is folly. Oh please continue to accuse me and others of Mariolitry! You're only heaping blessings on our heads. I hope you don't get as nasty as some of the others I've met along the Way. Some folks get really sickened by their constant blasphemy of Mary and the parts of Scripture they won't, can't, don't accept and then they act on it and create even more sins, some even to the point of hate crimes. Feel like Martyring someone yet? for the love of God or for the love of Mary? When we love her are are loving Him, just as He said. Give it up and catch up soon. God is waiting to console your poor heart and heal you of your sins. Have a good cry. It ain't so bad.

Peace and all good,

Gail

 

[GailMc]

Hello bbbbbbb. You state this:

Dear GailMc,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. As our good friend, Anglian, has pointed out this road has been well-traveled on these forums before.

I think the principal difficulty you face is conflating Perpetual Virginity with Virginity. Nobody here denies that Mary was a pure and chaste virgin when she conceived Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit and that she remained so until after His birth. It is the belief that she remained a virgin following her "marriage" to Joseph that is problematic.

Do you believe that Mary would have sinned had she and Joseph engaged in marital intimacy following the birth of Jesus? If so, do you believe that married couples also engage in sin when they have intercourse with each other?

Would your mother be blasphemed if I believed that [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] she and your father, who were rightly married, engaged in intercourse so that the result was yourself? I assuredly do not consider your own mother to be in the least bit immoral or ungodly in this aspect of her life, nor do I hold any lower view of Mary whether or not she and Joseph, as a married couple following the birth of Jesus, also engaged in what is a pure and holy act of marital intimacy.

Number one you are speaking for too many people when you try to speak for all of the folks here at the Christian Forums. Number two Mary never sinned. I suppose you are trying to justify away your blasphemy of her by trying to proportedly accept that she was a Virgin during her pregnancy but you get tangled up in the after part with a little word - until. You are also showing that you still don't accept that the Scriptures that describe the accusations that were piling up from the Pharisees and those trying to remain with them were false ones. They eventually Crucified Him. One of the reasons they gave were the exact same ones you guys and gals that fall for that reasoning do and wind up denying Christ. It sickens you just like every other sin. God can heal you. Pray and ask He take away your blindness. We have been right about the facts of life of Jesus Mary and Joseph for quite a while and will be right long after you're gone. Please try to join us. Go back to your Bible and prayerfully read those passages and beg God to open your eyes to the Truth. Pleeeeeease. Try this prayer "Lord, I do believe; heal my unbelief." It has been known to work. Then try an Ave or two or maybe even three! Ooooooops is that too catholic for you?

Peace and all good,

Gail

 

[GailMc]

P.S.bbbbbbb nope my parents weren't in a real marriage. They had a legal marriage and yes I got born but they cheated on each other and did so often. Me, my brother and sister all paid dearly for their defiance. A little too dearly if you ask me. So did my children. They both died recently and oh well, God got His will for all that sin - Hell.

Peace and all good,

Gail

 

[bbbbbbb]

Indeed, and you are correct.

This is the reason I referred to two things that the RCC and the OCs agree on - the Creed and the second ecumenical Council.

Only those who dissent from these things actually deny the perpetual Virginity of Our Lady.

peace,

Anglian

Typically, those Christians who do so are called Dissenters and not Unorthodox or Heterodox - because they are typically orthodox in many, if not all other areas of Christian doctrine, I personally do not take offense at being called a Dissenter, but do understand that many use Unorthodox and Heterodox in a perjorative sense not unlike heretic.

 

[JCFantasy23]

Dear JCFantasy, you state this:

to which I'll say this - has it ever occured to you that those who use soem Scriptures to try and claim that Mary didn't remain a Virgin after God's birth are actually bearing false witness against God and those with Him? They did eventually Crucify Him, didn't they? If you read the full accounts in the Bible you will get a bigger picture then one or two lines taken out of context and twisted to help you deny some basic facts about God and His Mother. Funky thing about it too one of the very accusations against Him towards the end of His life here was blasphemy, the very thing that those who use these same Scriptures to infer that Mary and St. Jospeh had conjugal relations do when the try to take away the Incarnation of God in Mary's womb by denying she was a virgin before her pregnancy, during her pregnancy and after her pregancy and remain so till she passed from this life to Heaven. Oh dear! Have I gone to far in a catholic direction for you to understand? Hope not.

Peace and all good,

Gail

P.S. If you'd like to totally give up fighting the Spirit, perhaps you should admit it is a big sin to continue to speak against God's Mother and take it to a Confessional. Or stay sickened in sin. Choice is yours.

Wow. Gail, I'm not sure where all this anger is coming from in regard to my politely put post. I'll just state I in no way see how posting the scripture I did, and then stating what I see the scripture as meaning, is blaspheming against God. I have read more than a few lines in the bible. You have not gone too far in the "catholic direction" for me to understand. I do not "fight the spirit." I am not "speaking against God's mother" by not believing she remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. I am not "sickened in sin" by my views. And I do not "go to a Confessional." And yes, the choice is mine.

 

[MamaZ]

But then you aren't worshipping your husband as the second person of the Trinity, and his mother did not give birth to the Saviour of the world, so the analogy won't really get you there, I guess.

If you have never asked anyone else to pray for you, you probably won't get to first based, but if you have, think about it that way

peace,

Anglian

I have asked many people to pray with me as scripture states..I do not ask those whom are not here with me bodily to pray with me. I do not need to go through Mary to worship my King and savior. I can go directly to Him with all my praise for Him alone. Mary was a human being not a god nor godess to whom I must bow to get to my King.. She is not a godess now either.. She is a human being that is now at home with her King as Peter and Paul and Stephen are.. I don't worship Jesus as the second person of the Trinity Either. I worship Him as He is King of Kings and maker of all things. Savior of my being.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Ebionites. They denied the Virgin Birth.

Well, I am not an Ebionite, nor are there any of those folks around today, so your point is moot. In addition, I do not know anyone on this thread who is denying the Virgin Birth. Please understand that my point is not at all about the Virgin Birth but about the sinfulness that Catholics such as yourself attach to intercourse within the bounds of holy matrimony.

Mary's sinless doesn't hinge upon it (assuming, of course, she didn't take a vow of virginity). But it is part of Mary's [holiness. My ex-fiance (who was female then, and is now female-to-male transsexual) and I wanted to have sex in or near a (Catholic) church as some sort of sacrilege. We never did but we did perform some other outrageous sacrilegious acts, of which I won't go into detail here but echoes a certain infamous scene in "The Exorcist". We did all sorts of things, we were into the BDSM (sadomasochism) "scene" and would go to big house "play parties" (counting the whole night, over 100 people) of our friends who were professional dominants (pro-dom/me, dominatrix) where there would be all sorts of things going on that I wouldn't mention here. Suffice to say, that I picked up booklet at Church a couple weeks ago on making a good confession and under the sexuality heading, I was just going down the list saying "check, check, check" -- I don't think there is any perverse sexual sins there I haven't committed and hadn't committed before I was even 20.

So my point is not to disgust you with my teenage sex life but rather that it is unseemly for sexuality to be attributed to Mary. Certainly, most people's sex lives are a little more "plain vanilla" than mine and there are certainly both sinful and non-sinful sexual acts. But even if they never committed a sexual sin, it is still sacrilegious.

I wanted to have sex in a Church because I wanted to commit a blasphemous, sacrilegious act. How much more of a sacrilege would it be to have sex with the Living Temple of God? It's not just a mere historical fact that we're arguing, that Mary and Joseph didn't have any children after Jesus (which Helvidious stupidly asserts), but a defense of the honor of our Queen and Mother as the Holy Temple.

So when you throw mud at God's Holy Temple and deride her and call her a sinner and impugn her virginity, all in the name of praising God, certainly we can get upset. You are not ignorant simply of factual history but you blaspheme when you say that Mary and Joseph had sex. She is the Mother of God, Daughter of the Father, Spouse of the Holy Spirit. My life is full of some of the most heinous, perverse sins you can even think of (haven't murdered anybody yet though....) but Mary, Mary is Holy, chosen of God to be His Mother and Queen. Assigning to her any sort of sin or corruption or even marital relations is repulsive to the very role that God gave to her. So in doing so, you are not only being ignorant of fact but offensive to God.

I suggest you keep your personal sexual life well, personal, rather than confessing it on the world wide web. I think your discussion is, as you said, disgusting, and best left to the Confessional.

1Cr 3:16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
1Cr 3:17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.

According to God you are a holy temple. Therefore, using your own logic, it would be a sin of the highest order for anyone to defile you be engaging in any form form of sexual activity, including marital intercourse. If you truly believe this then you are at variance with Catholic teaching and should confess this perverse sin.

No where in the Bible is Mary stated to be the Holy Temple on the order of the Temple in Jerusalem. No burnt offerings were ever made in her nor were any offerings made of any sort. The very idea is as absurd as it is gross. Mary's body was a temple, indeed, as is the body of every Christian. It is no more a sin for a married Christian couple to beget children than it was for Mary and Joseph to have begotten children after the birth of Jesus Christ.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Hello bbbbbbb. You state this:


Number one you are speaking for too many people when you try to speak for all of the folks here at the Christian Forums. Number two Mary never sinned. I suppose you are trying to justify away your blasphemy of her by trying to proportedly accept that she was a Virgin during her pregnancy but you get tangled up in the after part with a little word - until. You are also showing that you still don't accept that the Scriptures that describe the accusations that were piling up from the Pharisees and those trying to remain with them were false ones. They eventually Crucified Him. One of the reasons they gave were the exact same ones you guys and gals that fall for that reasoning do and wind up denying Christ. It sickens you just like every other sin. God can heal you. Pray and ask He take away your blindness. We have been right about the facts of life of Jesus Mary and Joseph for quite a while and will be right long after you're gone. Please try to join us. Go back to your Bible and prayerfully read those passages and beg God to open your eyes to the Truth. Pleeeeeease. Try this prayer "Lord, I do believe; heal my unbelief." It has been known to work. Then try an Ave or two or maybe even three! Ooooooops is that too catholic for you?

Peace and all good,

Gail

Hello GailMc,

Do you believe marital intimacy is sin?

If so, then did you parents confess their sins and do penance after having begotten you?

Only if you believe that marital intimacy is sin, then you can say that I am accusing Mary of having sinned. My only statement on this thread (as well as many others) is that there is every biblical evidence that Mary and Joseph engaged in marital intimacy following the birth of Jesus Christ. The fact that you deny this evidence if not of great concern to me. It will not damn you to hell.

Why is it essential that I deny the biblical record and believe that Mary and Joseph were never really married?

 

[bbbbbbb]

P.S.bbbbbbb nope my parents weren't in a real marriage. They had a legal marriage and yes I got born but they cheated on each other and did so often. Me, my brother and sister all paid dearly for their defiance. A little too dearly if you ask me. So did my children. They both died recently and oh well, God got His will for all that sin - Hell.

Peace and all good,

Gail

I am truly sorry for you. Sin carries a tremendous cost and virtually none of us have a real understanding of what it actually meant for Christ to have born all of our sins by His death on the cross.

 

[Anglian]

Typically, those Christians who do so are called Dissenters and not Unorthodox or Heterodox - because they are typically orthodox in many, if not all other areas of Christian doctrine, I personally do not take offense at being called a Dissenter, but do understand that many use Unorthodox and Heterodox in a perjorative sense not unlike heretic.

Dear b7,

In the UK, historically dissenters are those belonging to a Church which is neither Anglican nor RCC nor Orthodox.

Those who do not give assent to the Nicene Creed are, of course, by that token, unorthodox, since it is the standard of orthodoxy.

I use it in no sense other than a descriptive one.

peace,

Anglian

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Sex between a husband and wife is not a repulsive act but is the beginning of the creation of life. I do not see how that would blaspheme Mary at all.

Mary and Joseph aren't exactly a normal husband and wife. Marital relations is not normally a repulsive act but can be in some circumstances, one of these circumstances includes giving birth to God.

It wouldn't matter if it was married sex, having sex in a Church would still be wrong because it's holy ground. Jews wouldn't have sex in a synagogue. Muslims wouldn't have sex in a mosque. Probably the only times when sex occurs in a place of worship is for love goddesses like Aphrodite It doesn't matter whether it is married sex or not, it's simply not done.

But the real question is why after so many years, is it important for you to overturn all that history and go against your own Protestant leaders and declare that Mary and Joseph were getting it on when there's no evidence that they did and plenty of evidence against it. Thomas Cranmer, the theological founder of Anglicanism, says those who say that are adding to the Bible and contradicting it and are therefore members of the Antichrist. Epiphanius wondered 1600 years ago what those people had against the Virgin that they would say such things.

Mary is the firstfruits of both Virgins and Mothers.

And he brought me back to the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary, which looked towards the east: and it was shut. And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut for the prince. The prince himself shall sit in it, to eat bread before the Lord: he shall enter in by the way of the porch of the gate, and shall go out by the same way. And he brought me by the way of the north gate, in the sight of the house: and I saw, and behold the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord: and I fell on my face. And the Lord said to me: Son of man, attend with thy heart, and behold with thy eyes, and hear with thy ears, all that I say to thee concerning all the ceremonies of the house of the Lord, and concerning all the laws thereof: and mark well the ways of the temple, with all the goings out of the sanctuary.

Mary's womb shall be shut, it shall not be opened and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut for the Prince. Mary had no marital relations before or after the birth of Jesus, she remained true to the prophecy.

 

[Anglian]

There is indeed 'something about Mary'. She is the mother of the Saviour of the whole world. She was perfectly obedient to God's will in the most trying of circumstances. And millions of Christians across the centuries have found in her a comfort and a route to her son.

And for this some feel the need to criticise. Sad.

Hail Mary, full of Grace,
the Lord is with thee.

May He be with us all.

peace,

Anglian

 

[MamaZ]

Originally Posted by Ezek 44:1-5

And he brought me back to the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary, which looked towards the east: and it was shut. And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut for the prince. The prince himself shall sit in it, to eat bread before the Lord: he shall enter in by the way of the porch of the gate, and shall go out by the same way. And he brought me by the way of the north gate, in the sight of the house: and I saw, and behold the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord: and I fell on my face. And the Lord said to me: Son of man, attend with thy heart, and behold with thy eyes, and hear with thy ears, all that I say to thee concerning all the ceremonies of the house of the Lord, and concerning all the laws thereof: and mark well the ways of the temple, with all the goings out of the sanctuary.

And what does this scripture have to do with Mary?
​

 

[Musa80]

Originally Posted by Ezek 44:1-5

And what does this scripture have to do with Mary?
​

It's prophecy that directly relates to Mary, or in this case, her womb. C'mon I thought American Protestants were prophecy nut's. They should be eatin this one up.

 

[MamaZ]

It's prophecy that directly relates to Mary, or in this case, her womb. C'mon I thought American Protestants were prophecy nut's. They should be eatin this one up.

How so.. Explain how this relates to Marys Womb.

 

[Musa80]

How so.. Explain how this relates to Marys Womb.

Seriously? Well alright then.

This gate shall be shut (the gate is Mary's womb), it shall not be opened (She's ever-virgin remember, no opening the gate please), and no man shall pass through it (no seriously, stay outta the womb): because the Lord the God of Israel (that would be Jesus)hath entered in by it(Jesus came from Mary's womb remember), and it shall be shut (once again, this is the temple of God, STAY OUT) for the prince(Prince of Peace, ya know that Jesus guy).

 

[MamaZ]

Seriously? Well alright then.

This gate shall be shut (the gate is Mary's womb), it shall not be opened (She's ever-virgin remember, no opening the gate please), and no man shall pass through it (no seriously, stay outta the womb): because the Lord the God of Israel (that would be Jesus)hath entered in by it(Jesus came from Mary's womb remember), and it shall be shut (once again, this is the temple of God, STAY OUT) for the prince(Prince of Peace, ya know that Jesus guy).

Where do you even get that this scripture was speaking anything about Mary though?