Sinless Mary? Another Roman Catholic myth...

[belovedwolfofgod]

So when, exactly, did they have sex? At least if it shows when they did, Im interested? Was it February 14th? Valentines day is very romantic that time in Israel.

:

Just kiddin around :bday:

 

[CatholicXian]

Gazza..

It seems you missed one of my posts where I pointed out that there is another Greek word also translated as "until" that implies time. Thus, you would not be eternally sick with the flu.

Do you count how many times you forgive someone?

God bless.

Our point exactly. That means Joseph and Mary did not eternally remain celibate. That's why the word "until" was used because it shows when Joseph and Mary had sexual relations.

And you would not quibble with the bible or do what Bill Clinton did when trying to redefine "is" when caught in a lie if the pope had not declared mary a virgin all her life. Sorry, but no matter how you try to butcher Matthew 1:25, you can never make it say; "And Joseph and Mary never had sex for the rest of their lives." Sorry. :wink:

Heidi, go back and re-read. There are TWO words in the Greek. But they get translated the same way in the ENGLISH.

ONE of those Greek words implies time, and the other-- "heos" used in that passage does NOT imply "and then it happened".

 

[thessalonian]

Gazza,

You site the following as PROOF that Mary had children and that they were named.

Matt 13: 54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked.
55 "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
56 Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
57 And they took offence at him. But Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honour."

There is a problem with using this passage. It is more likely that it actually promotes the Catholic position when examined in light of other scriptural passages. You see the Catholic position is that Judaism had a broader view of the term “brotherâ€Â. Ack, the Hebrew, and Adelphos, the greek were not limited to siblings of the same member. They included stepbrothers, cousins, nephews (lot was called Abrahams ack, brother), kinsmen, even countrymen. Most certainly it could mean of the same mother but it does not have to. Now here is the problem in this regard with your passage. Note the names, James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. Likely the same James and Joseph are mentioned later, as the sons of a woman, named Mary, who is at the foot of the cross.

Matt.27
1. [56] among whom were Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb'edee.
It is VERY unlikely that this woman, Mary the mother of James and Joseph is Mary, Jesus mother, since Jesus Mother is ALWAYS identified with him. It is also unlikely that this is another James and Joseph, for in John’s Gospel she is identified as a sister of Mary. It is not likely there were two Mary’s in the same family so this also points toward the Catholic understanding of Jewish culture and the use of the words aldephi and aldelphos.

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.

So this appears to identify who Mary the mother of James and Joesph is. Now we also know that Clopas was synonymous with Alpheaus in those days. Kinda like bob and Robert or peggy and margret. We are told in galations 1:19 that one of the Apostles, James the son of Alpheus, is a brother of the Lord.

Gal.1
[19] But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

I don't know of any brother (son of Mary) among the apostles so this adds credence again to the Catholic claim that brother does not always mean from the same mother in the Greek. There are two james' amond the Apostles, one, Son of Zebedee, and the other Son of Alpheus.

Don’t know that Mary the mother of Jesus ever was married to Alpheus. I do know that a Mary who was likely a cousin of Mary, the mother of Jesus was married to a man named Clopas who had a son named James. This all makes perfect sense and flows together. Have I proven that Jesus had no brothers who were sons on Mary. No. But I have shown that it is unlikely that those who you claim were sons of Mary are not and that no such sons are named. That there is a perfectly good explanation for the term brother used In scripture. Once again I have not claimed that I proved that Mary did not have children. But you have no passage that says “mary’s son bobâ€Â.

Your interpretation of the Greek word “Heosâ€Â(till/until} is wrong.

Nope sorry. It can be shown from several instances in the OT.

To illustrate: I come down sick with the Flu. I ring my boss and say to him, “I am sick with the flu, and I wont be back to work “until†(Heos)_ I recover.â€Â

To apply your interpretation of Matt. 1:25 and 2 Samuel 6:23 to that situation, I would be eternally sick with the flu.

Your illustration is a poor one because it does not leave the outcome neutral as the Hebrews did. You seem to have a hard time allowing for Hebrew culture and language in scripture. That is what will get you in trouble.

Hope tat helps.

Blessings

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

For the people who wish to see some more 'proof' of how we regard Mary, I got an excerpt from the opening passage of St. Louis DeMonfort's "True Devotion to Mary". Its a book and devotion that I think all Christians should do. JPII was a huge fan. Anyway

I avow, with all the Church, that Mary, being a mere creature that has come from the hands of the Most High, is in comparison with His Infinite Majesty less than an atom; or rather, she is noting as all, because only He is "He who is" (Exod. 3:14); consequently that grand Lord, always independent and sufficient to Himself, never had, and has not now, any absolute need of the holy Virgin for the accomplishment of His will and for the manifestation of His glory. He has but to will in order to do everything.

Nevertheless, I say that, things being as they are now--that is, God having willed to commence and to complete His greatest works by the most holy Virgin ever since He created her--we may well think He will not change His conduct in the eternal ages; for He is God, and He changes not, either in His sentiments or in His conduct.

So, I just thought I would put that out there.

"True Devotion to Mary" by St. Louis DeMontfort. Considered an authority on the subject. Him and a couple other theologians.

 

[mutzrein]

belovedwolfofgod

Off topic I know but your current signature amuses me. It reminds me of the scripture which talks about the beggar (in heaven) and the rich man (in hell) and the divide between them. "And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us."

In fact it mirrors a point I made in a post a little while ago which speaks of a widening gap. At some point the gap will not be able to be crossed either way.

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+

Our point exactly. That means Joseph and Mary did not eternally remain celibate. That's why the word "until" was used because it shows when Joseph and Mary had sexual relations.

Sacred Scripture tells us when Joseph and Mary consumated thier marriage?

As CatholiXian stated, "until", doesn't necessarily mean that eventually it happened.

Didn't Christ say that He would be with us until the consumation of the world? Uh... Then what? He leave us?

If we are to go by scripture alone, and scripture doesn't say specifically that Joseph and Mary had relations with eachother...... ????

If you notice, Sacred Scripture doesn't say "....but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son, and then they had relations.

 

[Heidi]

+JMJ+

Our point exactly. That means Joseph and Mary did not eternally remain celibate. That's why the word "until" was used because it shows when Joseph and Mary had sexual relations.

Sacred Scripture tells us when Joseph and Mary consumated thier marriage?

As CatholiXian stated, "until", doesn't necessarily mean that eventually it happened.

Didn't Christ say that He would be with us until the consumation of the world? Uh... Then what? He leave us?

If we are to go by scripture alone, and scripture doesn't say specifically that Joseph and Mary had relations with eachother...... ????

If you notice, Sacred Scripture doesn't say "....but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son, and then they had relations.

So why didn't Matthew 1:25 say; "And Joseph and Mary remained celibate for the rest of their lives?" :o Why not say that it that were true? You have to take the word; "until" in the context of the phrase in which it is used.

Mt. 1:25 is very clear when Joseph and Mary had sex. And again, this would never be an issue if the peope had never declared himself infallible so he can make up whatever gospel he wants and claim it's true. One really has to make a huge efftort to contradict matthew 1:25, because as it's written it's perfectly clear to all, including you and catholicxian.

So you can continue your distortions of scripture. My conscience is clear. I do not contradict the bible and say that Mary was a virgin all her life, paritcualraly when I would have to invent stories about Joseph to do so. You can if you like. So I guess you'll have to wait until you die to find out the bible was right after all. I'm done trying to convince you.

 

[CatholicXian]

How about reading "until" in the context of the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE in which it was written? You keep basing all your argument off of the English translation.

Do you keep a list keeping track of how many times you forgive someone? ... because, as you know, Christ said to forgive someone UNTIL ('heos') seven times seventy. How long does it usually take to get to 490?

 

[gazzamor]

Catholic, with all due respects, by trying to use another Greek word to prove that Mary had no sex all her life is ludicrous. The Greek word that Matthew used was “heos†not some other Greek word that has a different connotation, and is not found in Matthew 1:25.

By trying to prove your position by involving another Greek word, is twisting the scriptures, because this other word is not found in the text. It just doesn’t fit.

They both may translate to the same two English words “till/untilâ€Â, but have different connotations. Just like the English word “Wineâ€Â. In the Bible there are four words used for wine. Three alcoholic, one non alcoholic Also the English Word “Loveâ€Â. The Bible has four words: “Agape, Philos, Storge, Erosâ€Â. All have different connotations. To apply any of those words wrongly to mean anything else that what the writer meant is twisting scripture.

The New American Standard Bible puts Matthew 1:24, 25 this way:

“And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took her as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and called His name Jesus.â€Â
How long did Joseph keep her a virgin? All her life? No, after Jesus was born.

Illustration: I have three children. When my wife was pregnant with them, we both abstained from sexual relations for a time until after each baby was born. To apply your interpretation to the situation; either the other two were miracle births, or, I’ll have to get DNA tests on the other two to see if I am the father or not.

I came across one of your answers to Heidi as to what proof she had in regards to annulment of marriage on the grounds of non consummation.

“Proof?

Documents, encyclicals, canons, anything?â€Â

So you want proof. Here it is.

Grounds for annulment in the Catholic Church
Other situations in which there would be an impediment to marriage would be ones in which one or both spouses were psychologically immature to the point of not being able to make a rational commitment to marriage, severely mentally ill, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, had lied about their identity, had lied about their sexual orientation, had lied about their ability to con...union. Have a Blessed Easter gazzamor

 

[Heidi]

I already brought up the point that an unconsummated marriage was considered invalid in the catholic church but was accused of lying by Thessalonian. He accused me of making it up.

So it doesn't matter what is in print in the bible or the catholic doctrine, catholics will believe that Mary was sinless and a vrigin all of her life no matter what the bible says, simply because the pope announced that she was. The pope is obviously God to the catholics.

Do the catholics have this much trouble with other books as they do the bible? If someone said he didn't eat desert until he finished the main course, would the catholics think he never ate desert? :o How should one talk to the catholics if they don't understand a simple phrase like that? He already explained that he didn't eat desert until he finished the main course. So if the catholics can't understand a simple phrase like that one, then how can they ever understand the rest of scripture?

 

[thessalonian]

I already brought up the point that an unconsummated marriage was considered invalid in the catholic church but was accused of lying by Thessalonian. He accused me of making it up.

Heidi,

Don't you think that as a Christian you have an obligation not to bear false witness. That when you staight something it should be researched and true when you are testifying about someone. Well on page 13 you made the comment about consumation of marriages. I don't believe I ever responded to that post and I have looked in the 8 pages of responses in this thread since and I simply don't see where I did respond to it. So it appears to me that you have born false witness Heidi and owe someone an apology. :-D Perhaps you need some time away from the board as your animosity toward me is really beginning to show. By the way since you put me on ignore a few pages back you probably won't see this. Odd how you have seen me on other thread. I didn't think ignore blocked just one thread. :

Blessings

 

[Heidi]

I already brought up the point that an unconsummated marriage was considered invalid in the catholic church but was accused of lying by Thessalonian. He accused me of making it up.

Heidi,

Don't you think that as a Christian you have an obligation not to bear false witness. That when you staight something it should be researched and true when you are testifying about someone. Well on page 13 you made the comment about consumation of marriages. I don't believe I ever responded to that post and I have looked in the 8 pages of responses in this thread since and I simply don't see where I did respond to it. So it appears to me that you have born false witness Heidi and owe someone an apology. :-D Perhaps you need some time away from the board as your animosity toward me is really beginning to show. By the way since you put me on ignore a few pages back you probably won't see this. Odd how you have seen me on other thread. I didn't think ignore blocked just one thread. :

Blessings

It might have been Catholicxian. If it was, I apologize. But it wasn't an intentional false witness because I really believed it was you. Your incessant attacks on me have definitely had an affect on men, Thess. I guess it's going to take me awhile to believe you will treat me kindly. But that's what words can do to people. We can forgive each other but trust takes a lot longer to re-build.

So, do you believe the catholic doctrine when it says that an unconsummated marriage is not valid in the eyes of the church? If so, then you are saying that Mary & Joseph's marriage was invalid. But if you don't believe the catholic doctrine, then my words will be right about your declaration that the church didn't say that. So which is it?

 

[thessalonian]

Heidi,

I think you have an obligation to get it right when you accuse someone. The evidence is plain for all. Your apology is accepted however.

I believe that when Protestants try to explain Catholic theology and understandings, because they have a different mindset, they miss the mark. There are doctrinal elements about vows of celibacy you do not understand in Catholicism, related to Matt 19 and 1 Cor 7. There is really a skewed view of celibacy in Protestantism that does not allow you to understand Catholic practice in that area.

Blessings

 

[Heidi]

Heidi,

I think you have an obligation to get it right when you accuse someone. The evidence is plain for all. Your apology is accepted however.

I believe that when Protestants try to explain Catholic theology and understandings, because they have a different mindset, they miss the mark. There are doctrinal elements about vows of celibacy you do not understand in Catholicism, related to Matt 19 and 1 Cor 7. There is really a skewed view of celibacy in Protestantism that does not allow you to understand Catholic practice in that area.

Blessings

I got it right. by apologizing. Are you not forgiving? :o If not, there is nothing I can do about that.

So, does the catholic doctrine not mean what it says about the lack of consummation being grounds for an invalid marriage? Yes or no.

So are you saying that the catholic doctrine was made so that people won't understand it? :o If so, why?

 

[Heidi]

But I do agree with you, Thess, that the catholics have a different mindset than those who believe the bible. The Holy Spirit inside each born-again Christian is the same Spirit with which the bible was written so born again Christians will always agree with the bible.

But since the catholic church disagrees with so much of scripture and even makes up its own gospel, then they are not coming from the Holy Spirit but the devil. The devil leads us away from scripture and the Holy Spirit leads us to believe scripture. And that is why you & I will always disagree because we're coming from different places. I believe scripture and you constantly argue with it. I agree with those who agree with the bible and I disagree with those who disagree with the bible.

So it is clear that the difference between you and I are like night and day. So there is no point in further exchange between us.

 

[thessalonian]

But I do agree with you, Thess, that the catholics have a different mindset than those who believe the bible. The Holy Spirit inside each born-again Christian is the same Spirit with which the bible was written so born again Christians will always agree with the bible.

The Catholic mindset is that there are 50 million authorities on scripture out there all running around contradicting eachother with what they say is true and is the gospel. There is one Lord, one faith, and one Baptism. The Church is the pillar and support of the truth and the truth is knowable and shall set you free. I believe the Bible 100% but I don't believe every tom, dick, and Heidi, interpretation of it. Sorry.

But since the catholic church disagrees with so much of scripture and even makes up its own gospel, then they are not coming from the Holy Spirit but the devil.

Catholicism is 100% compatable with scripture. Tell me, where do you disagree with scripture. Surely you don't have it all right. Is what you have wrong from the devil? It must be.

The devil leads us away from scripture and the Holy Spirit leads us to believe scripture. And that is why you & I will always disagree because we're coming from different places. I believe scripture and you constantly argue with it. I agree with those who agree with the bible and I disagree with those who disagree with the bible.

I believe scripture Heidi. Your continuing badgering me on this is rather boring I am sorry to say. You believe that all that is going on in the nuerons in your mind is what scripture says. Understandable. But sadly you have many errors.

So it is clear that the difference between you and I are like night and day. So there is no point in further exchange between us.

Yes it is. I submit to Christ's Church and you submit to your own ideas of what scripture says. Your right. I will just pray for you.

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

I got it right. by apologizing. Are you not forgiving? :o If not, there is nothing I can do about that.

YOur forgiven. I'll not bring it up again. Just saying that a Christian has a higher obligation to get it right. But I'm not losing any sleep over it.

So, does the catholic doctrine not mean what it says about the lack of consummation being grounds for an invalid marriage? Yes or no.

Catholic doctrine is not a one size fits all. There are exceptions to things. Vows of celibacy are allowed.

So are you saying that the catholic doctrine was made so that people won't understand it? :o If so, why?

Nope I understand it. But as a non-catholic you will not allow yourself to because of your antagonism toward the Church. That's all I am saying.

Blessings