I want to understand the Catholic faith so....

[LonelyPilgrim]

Regarding Mary being a perpetual virgin, this is just ridiculous and I don't know why you would continue to believe in such things that are taught by the RCC. In the scripture above, there is a revealing word which destroys the whole idea of Mary as a perpetual virgin.

Hi. I'm sorry that you think it is "ridiculous," but again, this is a belief that was almost unanimously believed by Christians down through the ages. I know your argument well -- after all, I used to be a Protestant too. It is naive to think that you, who I presume are not a native Greek speaker, can understand the text and idiom of the New Testament more clearly than its original recipients. This passage did not present a problem for their belief in Mary's having been a perpetual virgin -- so apparently it doesn't "destroy" the idea quite so self-evidently as you think.

Much has been written on this passage, in fact, by those even more knowledgeable about it:

Scripture’s statement that Joseph "knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn" would not necessarily mean they did "know" each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, "Until we meet again, God bless you." Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point.

More...
​

That information aside, do you actually believe that God would tell Joseph to take Mary as his wife and to remain celibate during his entire marriage to her?

Sure; and why not? The Protoevangelium of James (c. A.D. 140), discussed earlier in this thread, is an early apocryphal document that relates the tradition that Mary was an orphan dedicated to the temple and Joseph an older man whom God called to be the guardian and protector of Mary and Jesus. There are much worse reasons to get married. We know for a fact from Scripture that Joseph was a pious man who placed the call of God and the needs of his wife and adopted son above his own.

 

[fordman]

Please explain the immaturity of "LOL"

Wow....it went right over your head , didn't it. {rolling eyes}

I think it rude you calling someone Pops

Hmmmm...... maybe up north it is, but where I'm from here in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, and many other parts of the country it is not. I grew up calling my grandfather "Pop's" and he loved it. Not only that, my siblings and I grew up calling our Grandmother "Granny"! Do you consider that rude as well. Have you ever watched the Beverly Hillbillies? I think you are just bored and looking for something to cry about. Again..... this is just my personal opinion and is subject to error. 　
　

Pax Christi

 

[Magenta]

Wow....it went right over your head , didn't it. {rolling eyes}

Hmmmm...... maybe up north it is, but where I'm from here in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, and many other parts of the country it is not. I grew up calling my grandfather "Pop's" and he loved it. Not only that, my siblings and I grew up calling our Grandmother "Granny"! Do you consider that rude as well. Have you ever watched the Beverly Hillbillies? I think you are just bored and looking for something to cry about. Again..... this is just my personal opinion and is subject to error. 　
　
Pax Christi

Hmmm, seems you completely missed the point of what I was saying, about you having nothing of substance to add to the conversation with someone you were using terminology that may be fine among people you know but questionable when used in such a derogatory manner as you seemed to be employing. Suspect also because in reality the person with whom you were "conversing" is barely a decade older than you. Calling someone ten years your senior a term comparable to granddad may be acceptable where you come from, but it makes me question your family roots, among other things.

Also, a person putting me on ignore does not mean I cannot see the lies they continue to post. Just so you know, I am free to continue responding to such people as I feel moved. He lied again, you know. He claimed that in every single post where I addressed him, I called him a liar. That claim alone makes him a liar. He started out with lies to me, and ends with them. At least he is consistent.

 

[biblicalsandy]

Wow....it went right over your head , didn't it. {rolling eyes}



Hmmmm...... maybe up north it is, but where I'm from here in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, and many other parts of the country it is not. I grew up calling my grandfather "Pop's" and he loved it. Not only that, my siblings and I grew up calling our Grandmother "Granny"! Do you consider that rude as well. Have you ever watched the Beverly Hillbillies? I think you are just bored and looking for something to cry about. Again..... this is just my personal opinion and is subject to error. 　
　

Pax Christi

My grandma had all of her grand kids calling her "Dwa Dwa!" She hated to be called anything else!

 

[breno785au]

When they say Mary was a perpetual virgin, does that mean she didn't have sex even when married to Joseph after Jesus was born?
If so, what kind of sick marriage is that? Also isn't James the half brother of Jesus? Mary and Josephs son?

 

[Magenta]

When they say Mary was a perpetual virgin, does that mean she didn't have sex even when married to Joseph after Jesus was born?
If so, what kind of sick marriage is that? Also isn't James the half brother of Jesus? Mary and Josephs son?

Yes, that is what it means. Some pretend brother and sister means something else, perhaps cousin, even though there is a specific word for cousin, or else they say that Joseph was obviously previously married and had children from his former marriage... based on apocryphal writings that have him aged ninety when he wed virginal Mary at age twelve or thirteen. Then following the birth of Jesus they refused to comply with God's wishes, but she is considered sinless any ways, elevated to equal status with Jesus in that regard, in fact they will tell you Mary needed to be sinless so that Jesus could be sinless.

 

[Magenta]

Both James and Jude are brothers of Jesus and have books in the Bible

 

[breno785au]

Yes, that is what it means. Some pretend brother and sister means something else, perhaps cousin, even though there is a specific word for cousin, or else they say that Joseph was obviously previously married and had children from his former marriage... based on apocryphal writings that have him aged ninety when he wed virginal Mary at age twelve or thirteen. Then following the birth of Jesus they refused to comply with God's wishes, but she is considered sinless any ways, elevated to equal status with Jesus in that regard, in fact they will tell you Mary needed to be sinless so that Jesus could be sinless.

Wow, what a back story you have to create to support that view, thanks for clarifying.
Yes Jude too was also Jesus' brother, thanks for reminding me.

 

[sydlit]

●.Originally posted by lonely pilgrim from post # 1121:
"I know your argument well -- after all, I used to be a Protestant too".●

Interesting that you would assume that person is a protestant.
Also interesting that claiming to have once been a protestant gives you knowledge, all-too-well, of his arguement.
Also, you admit you've been a protestant and you've been a catholic.
Have you considered dropping the religious affiliations altogether and becoming a christian? There are plenty of ppl here that can help you do just that. Feel free to pm me if you want, it will remain private.
If being a christian doesn't seem to suit you, I'm sure you can always go back to being religious, catholic or protestant.

 

[Magenta]

Wow, what a back story you have to create to support that view, thanks for clarifying.
Yes Jude too was also Jesus' brother, thanks for reminding me.

You are welcome.

In fact they will tell you Mary needed to be sinless so that Jesus could be sinless.
That should ring alarm bells in any Christian. Jesus never once addressed Mary
as His mother, but Catholics call her the mother of humanity and the queen of heaven.
Jesus never elevated Mary above others. He said that anyone who did the will of God
was His mother, His brother, His sister.
Jesus told us to pray to our Father in heaven. They pray to Mary.
Scripture tells us there is one mediator between God and man.
Catholics tell us Mary is a mediatrix.
God several times throughout Scripture says He will not share His glory,
while Catholics glorify, venerate, and adore Mary.
We see nothing in Scripture to endorse her bodily assumption,
her perpetual virginity or her immaculate conception. Two of those are
proclaimed infallible dogmas by the RCC. Catholics are bound to accept them.

Within Catholicism, there is a drive to define a new Marian dogma in which Catholics, as a matter of faith, would be obliged to accept: 1) Mary participates in redemption with Jesus Christ; 2) grace is granted by Jesus only through the intercession of Mary; and 3) all prayers from the faithful must flow through Mary, who brings them to the attention of her Son.

Catholics believe that a fallible man is the Rock that Jesus is building His Church on, not a confession of faith divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, despite a plethora of Scriptures that attest to the fact that God is the sole Rock of our salvation. They teach purgatory, and many other things neither the apostles nor Jesus ever taught. For instance, they claim priests must be celibate, when they were not in the early church... not even Peter! Another example would be infant baptism, nowhere promoted in Scripture. They burned people at the stake for daring to read the Bible, which is what Scripture tells us to do. Despite all this, and more, the Catholic Church considers herself the only valid expression of the community of God.

There is probably more

 

[breno785au]

Mary didn't need to be sinless, Jesus had His Father's DNA (which is how it works naturally I believe) Mary needed salvation just as much as anyone, only Jesus was all points tempted but never sinned. Jesus went to the cross, Mary did not. Jesus is the Lamb of God, Mary is not. Yeah, we could go on and on.
My uncle and family are catholics and worships Mary, the reasons I have heard in the past to defend this mindset is incredible.

Crikey, so many auto corrections from my phone..

 

[Magenta]

●.Originally posted by lonely pilgrim from post # 1121:
"I know your argument well -- after all, I used to be a Protestant too".●

Interesting that you would assume that person is a protestant.
Also interesting that claiming to have once been a protestant gives you knowledge, all-too-well, of his arguement.
Also, you admit you've been a protestant and you've been a catholic.
Have you considered dropping the religious affiliations altogether and becoming a christian? There are plenty of ppl here that can help you do just that. Feel free to pm me if you want, it will remain private.
If being a christian doesn't seem to suit you, I'm sure you can always go back to being religious, catholic or protestant.

Oh, no, he accepts the Mariology hook line and sinker, he is sunk as a Catholic

 

[Magenta]

Mary didn't need to be sinless, Jesus had His Father's DNA (which is how it works naturally I believe) Mary needed salvation just as much as anyone, only Jesus was all points tempted by never sinned. Jesus went to the cross, Mary did not. Jesus is the Lamb, Mary is not. Yeah, we could go on and on.
My uncle and family are catholics and worships Mary, the reasons I have heard in the past to defend this mindset is incredible.

I would use the word sickening. Still, incredible will do in a pinch

But yes, it is amazing how far they go to defend their heresies

 

[fordman]

Hmmm, seems you completely missed the point of what I was saying, about you having nothing of substance to add to the conversation with someone you were using terminology that may be fine among people you know but questionable when used in such a derogatory manner as you seemed to be employing.

With all due respect, you have the right to your own opinion, and can question my motives all you wish, but for you to conclude what is or is not derogatory in my heart is not up for you to decide. You do not know whats in my heart, or what is not, only God does. Surely, you are not putting yourself at the same level as God.

Suspect also because in reality the person with whom you were "conversing" is barely a decade older than you. Calling someone ten years your senior a term comparable to granddad may be acceptable where you come from, but it makes me question your family roots, among other things.

Barely a decade older than I? Hmmm... Not sure what they teach there in Canada, but here in the U.S. we are taught a decade is equal to ten years. If you were to compare valleyants age to mine, you would see that he is two decades plus two years my senior. (U.S. calculation that is) Thats old enough to be my dad, or should I dare say.... my Pop's!

Also, a person putting me on ignore does not mean I cannot see the lies they continue to post. Just so you know, I am free to continue responding to such people as I feel moved.

Lies? what lies? care to elaborate? Anyhoo, my point was, yes, you can still see his posts, but you keep responding to his posts as if he could see them. Like I said, your talking to a blank wall!
　

He lied again, you know. He claimed that in every single post where I addressed him, I called him a liar. That claim alone makes him a liar. He started out with lies to me, and ends with them. At least he is consistent.

Really? You just called him a liar in the last quote I just posted of yours. I am beginning to agree with LonelyPilgrim, you have issues sister, and don't feel as if I too have the time or patience to argue with ya. The ignore option may come into play where you are concerned.
　



Pax Christi

　

 

[epostle]

When they say Mary was a perpetual virgin, does that mean she didn't have sex even when married to Joseph after Jesus was born?
If so, what kind of sick marriage is that? Also isn't James the half brother of Jesus? Mary and Josephs son?

Mary was married to God, with Joseph assigned as guardian and breadwinner. It was not a marriage in 21st century terms but in 1st century Jewish terms and long before. There is nothing "sick" about it if you are willing to honestly examine the evidence.

Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary's kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as "cousin," but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for "cousin."

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary.

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus' "brothers" amounts to about 120. Mary would have to be pregnant for 90 consecutive years to produce that many "brothers". It's so absurd it's funny.

In Jewish Law a man betrothed to a woman was considered legally married to her. The word for betrothed in Hebrew is <Kiddush>, a word that is derived from the Hebrew word <Kadash> which means "holy" "consecrated," "set apart." Because by betrothal (as in Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27) , or marriage, a woman became the peculiar property of her husband, forbidden to others. The <Oral Law of Kiddushin> (Marriages and Engagements) states; "The husband prohibits his wife to the whole world like an object which is dedicated to the Sanctuary" <(Kiddushin> 2b, Babylonian Talmud). We know from the Gospel of Matthew 1:14 that Joseph the husband of Mary was a righteous man, a devout law-abiding Jew. Having noticed that Mary was pregnant and that he, her betrothed, had nothing to do with the pregnancy, Joseph had either to publicly condemn her and have her put to death for adultery (Dt 22:22-29) or put her away privately. His decision was made when an angel appeared to him in a dream, saying: "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins" (Mt. 1:20-21). The angel does not use the phrase for marital union: "go in unto" (as in Gn 30:3, 4, 16) or "come together" (Mt 1:18) but merely a word meaning leading her into the house as a wife <(paralambano gunaika)> but not cohabiting with her. For when the angel revealed to him that Mary was truly the spouse of the Holy Spirit, Joseph could take Mary, his betrothed, into his house as a wife, but he could never have intercourse with her because according to the Law she was forbidden to him for all time.

You have a choice: remain doctrinally anti-Semitic or keep an open mind.

Having been enlightened by an angel in a dream regarding her pregnancy, and perhaps further by Mary concerning the words of the archangel Gabriel to her at the Annunciation, Joseph knew that God had conducted himself as a husband in regard to Mary. She was now prohibited to him for all time, and for the sake of the Child and Mary he could only live with her in an absolutely chaste relationship. Living a celibate life within marriage was not unknown in Jewish tradition. It was told that Moses, who was married, remained continent the rest of his life after the command to abstain from sexual intercourse (Ex 19:15) given in preparation the seventy elders abstained thereafter from their wives after their call, and so did Eldad and Medad when the spirit of prophecy came upon them; indeed it was said that the prophets became celibate after the Word of the Lord communicated with them <(Midrash Exodus Rabbah> 19; 46.3; <Sifre to Numbers> 99 sect. 11; <Sifre Zutta> 81-82, 203-204; <Aboth Rabbi Nathan> 9, 39; <Tanchuman> 111, 46; <Tanchumah Zaw> 13; 3 <Petirot Moshe> 72; <Shabbath> 87a; <Pesachim> 87b, Babylonian Talmud).
read more here

"Itis an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin."
Martin Luther, op. cit., Volume 11, 319-320.

"Helvidiushas shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons,because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ."
Calvin translated "brothers" in this context to mean cousins or relatives.
Bernard Leeming, "Protestants and Our Lady", Marian Library Studies,January 1967, p.9.

​

"To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son."
John Calvin, A Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke(St. Andrew's Press, Edinburgh, 1972), p.32.

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin."
Zwingli used Exodus4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.
Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum,Volume 1, 424.

UlrichZwingli : "I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the everchaste, immaculate Virgin Mary."E. Stakemeier, DeMariologia et Oecumenismo,K. Balic, ed., (Rome, 1962), 456.

Much of Protestantism has deviated far from its own roots.

 

[Ahwatukee]

Mary was married to God, with Joseph assigned as guardian and breadwinner. It was not a marriage in 21st century terms but in 1st century Jewish terms and long before. There is nothing "sick" about it if you are willing to honestly examine the evidence

This is nothing but circumvention and distortion of scripture. There can be no honest examination for this, for there is absolutely no scripture that supports this nonsense! I advise you to find the real Jesus and believe in the true word of God, because what you are believing and teaching is anything but the truth.

 

[epostle]

[/COLOR][/B]
i

You are a valuable contributor to this forum. Don't waste your energy on members who are obviously dysfunctional and emotionally scarred, blaming a symbol of authority (on a mis-perceived Church) for their unresolved pain. That's one reason of many that makes them so hostile. They don't want discussion, they want to shake their fists at God's authority He gave to his Church. Their anger is immense. They need to be healed by God's love, and this is a forum, not a clinic. Ignore therapy is the best we can do.

　

 

[Ahwatukee]

Hi. I'm sorry that you think it is "ridiculous," but again, this is a belief that was almost unanimously believed by Christians down through the ages.

First of all, I could care less what so-called Christian's believed in the past, as I get my information directly from the word of God, which is the source of all truth. Second, if anyone believed in what you are claiming, then they were also not in Christ. I gave you a scripture that demonstrates that Mary and Joseph were in fact intimate after Christ was born, but you chose to ignore it, which demonstrates that you are more concerned about protecting your own views opposed to finding out the real truth. Obviously none of the apostles believed what you are claiming about Mary and that because you will not find this information anywhere in scripture. I guess you people are going to find out the truth the hard way.

 

[A_Friend_In_Christ]

Let's not start a denomination war people... Even though I know you want to?

 

[Ahwatukee]

Let's not start a denomination war people... Even though I know you want to?

Hello,

It's not a denomination war, as I do not belong to any denomination. There is only one name that I want to be identified with and that is Jesus Christ! As far as my post, it is called contending for the faith, which is what the Lord wants all true believers to do.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."