There is no extra-Biblical used speculation to substantiate Catholic dogma!
Posted on 12/09/2012 2:05:12 PM PST by Alex Murphy
Edited on 12/09/2012 5:21:35 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicbridge.com ...
First of all, Mary was not a pagan, but a Jew. She housed the child Jesus in her womb. He was free from sin and she was IN ADVANCE freed from sin when she was chosen to be the Mother of Jesus, God and man, two natures in one person.
Secondly, Catholics do not worship Mary. We ask her to pray for us.
Did you miss the posts about language?
The use of brothers is substituted for cousins.
Even Paul writes to the different areas/communities as “brothers.”
I stated that in my post which you must not have read. The theory is that the term brothers meant cousins. No sale here but they can believe what they wish. All we really know is what is plainly stated in the Bible and anything beyond that is speculation. And even then there are varying interpretations of some passages .. so it goes on and on.
Before and after birth is a matter of one's faith but during birth is stupid beyond belief... 2000 years later and "during birth" is still talked about?
Why could that not have been a statement for John, not Jesus’ mother?
The argument suggests that Mary must not have had sons, or else Jesus wouldn’t assign her to John.
But if that argument is accurate, than was John born without a mother, so that Jesus had to give him one?
Only to those who overstate Mary's role in the God's redemptive plan. Mary was esteemed in God's sight, so for that reason we should show her respect as well but she was a bit player, not the co-star in God's redemptive plan. Mary was the fulfillment of God's prophesy of a virgin birth but John the Baptist was a prophetic fulfillment, too. He fulfilled God's prophesy as the "Elijah to come" and was praised by the Lord Himself that "none born of woman was greater than John the Baptist." Yet for some reason, John the Baptist doesn't seem to generate the same level of speculation.
I find the extra-Biblical speculation embodied in Mariology very troublesome and not at all compelling. If Mary had other children besides Jesus through perfectly lawful sexual relations with her husband, Joseph, how does that, in any way, diminish the fulfillment of virgin prophesy or make her any less righteous?
I don't see that in post 31 so I don't know what it is a repeat of unless you meant it was a repeat of...
...what you wrote: "Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Using typology, when the Ark of the Old Covenant was touched — the person died."
Therefore if that is true, anyone touching Mary would die. The use of typology seems quite a stretch unless there is a scripture in the NT saying that Mary is the latter day Ark of the Covenant.
I've never seen anything like that.
Mary and Joseph were married, as noted in scripture.
20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife...There was no qualification (don't have sex with her or you will die), the angel said take her as your wife.
24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.[d] And he called His name Jesus."...and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son"
That is the same as saying that he DID "know" (Biblical lingo for having sex) her after Jesus was born.
Seems pretty cut and dried.
Joseph had sexual relations with his wife, and he did not die.
I know that Catholicism and the church fathers and many others outside of Catholicism spent centuries trying to make Mary a perpetual virgin, but scripture doesn't uphold that theory.
The Catholic Church has a different viewpoint on this. Joseph agreed to be the guardian of Jesus and to be a celibate man in the union with the Blessed Virgin Mary. We know about some of the dreams that he had.
What if he had other dreams that asked him to remain celibate?
In fact, I believe MacDonald touches on that.
Did you read the WHOLE article? Especially the sections about “brothers”?????
Please read it here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2967177/posts?page=37#37
John took her to his home that same hour. Remember that Mary, Joseph, Jesus (and the rest of the offspring) were living in Nazareth right up to the beginning of Christ’s ministry. So, should they have still been living in their own homes in the area, Mary was going to have a long hike back. Remember that John, one of the sons of Zebedee, was called by Jesus at the beginning, while mending fishing nets at the Sea of Galilee. Also remember, that later at the trial of Jesus, John is said to have been known to the high priest in Jerusalem. Could it be that John had been living in Jerusalem, but lived part time with his parents in Capernaum as a fisherman?
Logistics say that they didn’t head back to Galilee that same hour, for they were present for the resurrection events three days later. Galilee is about 70 miles, as the crow flys, from Jerusalem. Over and around the rough terrain, it was likely over 80. At least 160 miles round trip. John apparently had a home in Jerusalem, or in the immediate area; and took her in at the Lord’s command. Simple as that.
The above is my opinion; just as your RC teachers use their opinion to build a case for Mary doctrine.
Lord bless
I agree with you. There is plenty of reason to believe Mary had other children the normal way, and only contortionistic speculation that she didn’t.
There is nothing wrong with Mary and Joseph procreating as is normal.
Exactly. There is nothing wrong or unbiblical about it. Her main purpose for God was pretty much over and her and Joseph - being normal, mortal humans - could go on doing what humans do
Well, yes they do. I prefer the simple words of scripture translated by the Holy Spirit.
To refresh your memory:
24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.[d] And he called His name Jesus. "...and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son"I c/p'ed more of my former post then I intended to because I would like to see what you have to say concerning Catholic dogmamatic teachings vs the Holy Bible.That is the same as saying that he DID "know" (Biblical lingo for having sex) her after Jesus was born.
Seems pretty cut and dried.
Joseph had sexual relations with his wife, and he did not die.
I know that Catholicism and the church fathers and many others outside of Catholicism spent centuries trying to make Mary a perpetual virgin, but scripture doesn't uphold that theory.
Especially where in the Bible it says Mary is the latter day Ark of the Covenant.
What if he had other dreams that asked him to remain celibate?
That would be important enough to be mentioned in scripture I would imagine. And it would settle this whole argument.
But the is just another attempt at extra-Biblical speculation to substantiate Catholic dogma.
Kinda like a strawman.
Uh, I don't quite know how the books author could come away with that, if taking the texts at face value. It would take a lot of explaining away to end with saying the NT doesn't portray Jesus as "only begotten son of God". Mary, the virgin birth, etc? Perhaps a close relative like James (actual brother, Mary & Joseph parents of himself?) might have trouble with seeing Jesus as truly son of God, but, uh, couldn't Mary explain the situation? So what gives? I wonder if this writer is trying to plant the seed that Jesus wasn't who He said he was, then have the reader decide on their own to reject the Resurrection (even as the writer is alleged to posit it to have occurred?)
Did not Isiah prophecy about a VIRGIN given birth to the Messiah?
When it comes to this time of the year, this is one of the things I dread, this old debate about how the Savior Jesus came into the world.
The wise men visiting Jesus was foretold in the Old Testament. Just the other day I wondered why they were so important to be included in prophecy. One thing I got to thinking about was that perhaps one of the reasons they visited Jesus (when he was perhaps two - and back home with his family/tribe) was to be a witness to the family/tribe that He WAS the King of the Jews, and that a miracle had happened. Sort of a third-party, unbiased witness.
Also, the wealth they gave Mary and Joseph no doubt served them well when they had to flee to Egypt. (Of course if they hadn't visited and screwed up with Herod - they wouldn't have had to flee!)
But, by fleeing, and being refugees, and I suppose outcasts - Jesus experienced one more thing that so many of us experience.
......Yet a couple of years ago, there was a movie that, had shown towards the end of it, it came out during the Advent/Christmas holiday seasons called “ The Nativity”, which showed a young St. Joseph running in panic with a teenaged Blessed Virgin Mary running to find that stable cave for her to give birth to the Savior. It sure did looked like she was struggling to give birth.
I remember seeing the movie “ The Nativity” when it first came out. That took me by surprise.
Also too, when Jesus gave his mother Mary to John, at the foot of the cross, that in turn made her the spiritual mother of ALL Christian believers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.