Christian Forums

You actually think that Joseph never ever had sexual relations with Mary during their marriage?  If you do, then I have some swampland in Florida I would like to sell you.

Whether Mary had any additional children is not the issue here..

Tantor:

Yes, of course, Joseph and Mary never had sexual relations.  And you're right, the issue isn't children, the issue for many who deny PVM is their view of sexual relations.

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 09:06:31
Tantor:

Yes, of course, Joseph and Mary never had sexual relations.  And you're right, the issue isn't children, the issue for many who deny PVM is their view of sexual relations.

How do you know they didn't?

I apologize if I misspoke but I thought Catholics prayed  'To' Saints and Mary which to me is worship.  I ask brothers and sisters to pray for me but pray to God and not to a Saint.  I don't pray to my brothers and sisters to pray to God for me. 

It is strange to me that a woman is considered more Holy or Pure because she is a virgin.  What difference does it make if she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ?  If anything she would have remained more of a child/woman by not having a sexual relationship with her husband.  We learn patience from our children which she would not have learned from Christ since he was perfect. 

It isn't reasonable to assume Mary remained a virgin and without additional children while married.  Are you assuming Mary remained a virgin while married because I cannot find a specific scripture that says she remained a virgin while married?

I have Catholic friends but it is nice having someone I can ask questions and appreciate your patience.  Bet, you have kids?  That's a joke.

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 09:43:32How do you know they didn't?

How do you  know they did?  You can't appeal to the adelphos cognates since that's inconclusive.  Same thing for "until."

Quote from: Belinda on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 09:59:07I apologize if I misspoke but I thought Catholics prayed  'To' Saints and Mary which to me is worship.  I ask brothers and sisters to pray for me but pray to God and not to a Saint.  I don't pray to my brothers and sisters to pray to God for me.

The "pray to" verbage is actually a hold over from older forms of English.  Think of the Shakespearean "I prithee . . ." which is literally "I pray to thee."  It does not mean that you pray to that person as though you were addressing them as a deity, but, rather that you are presenting a request to them.

"Prayer to" the saints is simply presenting our prayer requests to them just as we do to the saints still living in this mortal life.

Because I know this is a point of confusion for my Protestant brothers and sisters, I try to be careful when discussing this to say such things as, "I ask the Theotokos to pray for me," or "I ask the intercessions of St. Benedict"--things, by the way, that I do with my friends living in this mortal life as well.

Quote from: Belinda on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 09:59:07It is strange to me that a woman is considered more Holy or Pure because she is a virgin.  What difference does it make if she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ?

Again, there's a misunderstanding here.  We do not consider Mary holy because she was a virgin, but because she gave God (Jesus) his flesh and carried him in her womb.  The fact that God (Jesus) shares the DNA of Mary, taking from her his human nature and human body, indicates how completely she was united to God.  And the fact of such union and the presence of God in her very body (as well as soul), is what makes her holy, indeed, completely holy.

That is why Uzzah was struck down: not because he touched a gold-plated wood box that God made a rule about not touching, but, rather, because that gold-plated wood box had God's presence dwelling in it which made that box (the ark) utterly holy.  Uzzah's presumption was that it was just a gold-plated box.

Quote from: Belinda on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 09:59:07If anything she would have remained more of a child/woman by not having a sexual relationship with her husband.  We learn patience from our children which she would not have learned from Christ since he was perfect.

Christ was certainly morally and spiritually perfect, but since he was a human being as well as God, he would have gone through the normal human stages of development: the terrible twos, the why stage, the emotional roller coaster years of adolescence, and so forth.

Furthermore, you are making a huge leap assuming that only by having sex (and/or having children) does one become a mature woman (or man) and move from being a child.  That is a very questionable (and I happen to think utterly wrong) assumption.

Quote from: Belinda on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 09:59:07It isn't reasonable to assume Mary remained a virgin and without additional children while married.

Why isn't it reasonable?  Just saying it isn't proves nothing.  Prove that it isn't reasonable.

Quote from: Belinda on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 09:59:07Are you assuming Mary remained a virgin while married because I cannot find a specific scripture that says she remained a virgin while married?

Well, there's no specific Scripture that said she had sex with Joseph either--only a lot of inferences from inconclusive texts.

So how does a Christian decide that?  Do you become your own infallible authority on these sorts of things?

Quote from: Belinda on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 09:59:07I have Catholic friends but it is nice having someone I can ask questions and appreciate your patience.  Bet, you have kids?  That's a joke.

Thank you.  And yes, I do have kids, two daughters, 4 and 2.

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 12:46:33

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 09:43:32How do you know they didn't?

How do you  know they did?  You can't appeal to the adelphos cognates since that's inconclusive.  Same thing for "until."

Word meaning is inductively understood.  When Matthew 13 refers to Jesus' brothers and sisters coming with His mother, it's very safe to surmise that these are His half-siblings.  It is an exegetical backflip to call these persons cousins or what have you.

QuoteThat is why Uzzah was struck down: not because he touched a gold-plated wood box that God made a rule about not touching, but, rather, because that gold-plated wood box had God's presence dwelling in it which made that box (the ark) utterly holy.  Uzzah's presumption was that it was just a gold-plated box.

Uzzah reached out to keep the ark from falling to the ground.  He was well aware what was in the box, given his position.  Only certain people could carry the Ark according to Jewish tradition.  I want to say it was the Levites, but I don't remember the exact group. [EDIT: Kohathite]

Does anybody remember the angels who, when the disciples begin to worship them, rebuke the men for worshiping them instead of God?  It's the exact same situation with Mary.  I bet she's up in heaven either completely oblivious to your supplications or she's embarrassed.  Why on earth do Catholics need a comforter, an advocate in Mary?  That's SPECIFICALLY the role of the Holy Spirit!

I bet she's up in heaven either completely oblivious to your supplications or she's embarrassed.

I agree...  And when I get to heaven and have my sister over for coffee, I plan to ask her about that... but then, so is everyone else in the world who understood this reality.  So... maybe I'll just talk "Kids" with her... 

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 19:06:41Word meaning is inductively understood.  When Matthew 13 refers to Jesus' brothers and sisters coming with His mother, it's very safe to surmise that these are His half-siblings.  It is an exegetical backflip to call these persons cousins or what have you.

You're absolutely right it's inductively understood.  So, inductively search through all the OT and NT Greek uses of adelphos and you'll see that biblically it cannot be limited to sons of the same mother.  To simply take one passage and say that's the "natural" meaning is only to instantiate your eisegesis of that passage.

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 19:06:41Does anybody remember the angels who, when the disciples begin to worship them, rebuke the men for worshiping them instead of God?  It's the exact same situation with Mary.  I bet she's up in heaven either completely oblivious to your supplications or she's embarrassed.  Why on earth do Catholics need a comforter, an advocate in Mary?  That's SPECIFICALLY the role of the Holy Spirit!

Since Roman Catholics and us Orthodox specifically, clearly and rationally deny that we worship any other being other than the Holy Trinity, why do you keep impugning us with this false accusation?  That is the most unChristian and unloving thing I can imagine.

Now, you may not accept our argument and explanation.  Fine.  But, unless you can offer an argument in return that defeats our explanation and argument, then your rejection of what we are claiming is a matter of your own psychological state and not a matter of the argument and explanation itself.  To simply ignore that we deny such worship and to impugn us with such a false charge is utterly disrespectful.

CDH, if you spoke aloud verbally to any other human being living or dead the way folks do to Mary or to some favorite saint, I would think you worshipped that person or that you were tetched.

But then again I see the very high level of adoration some people give their celebrities, their hereditary royals, their church leaders -- and that same flashing red warning light goes off for me.

You may feel and know and understand in your own heart and mind that you aren't worshipping all these non-divine people, but many a Catholic or Orthodox person does.  I've been among them, I've been right next to them, I've been one of them.  The same personal experience that colors your understandings and leanings in this realm of suppositions where induction and inference rule also colors mine.

As for me -- from Scripture it looks as if Mary and Joseph had a perfectly normal 1st-century Jewish married life and perfectly normal offspring after Jesus.  I am awed and humbled and grateful about what Mary did and the fantastic person she must have been as a young woman, to obey in faith like that against all odds of logic and safety -- what an example she is.  And as for Joseph -- What a man!  His level of obedience and forging a way ahead against a tidal wave of likelihood and possibility and danger... Thank God for the both of them.

And I've told them so before, too, just in case they can hear me... But I certainly do not count on those who've gone before being able to hear me.

Somehow I don't see any need for anyone ti have to pray for me -- it's something comforting that I want, glad to have it, but I can and do go to the Divine with prayer, with thanks and pleadings and adoration.  It's hard for me to understand how that is not enough for some folks, to have the very ear of God!

QuoteYou're absolutely right it's inductively understood.  So, inductively search through all the OT and NT Greek uses of adelphos and you'll see that biblically it cannot be limited to sons of the same mother.  To simply take one passage and say that's the "natural" meaning is only to instantiate your eisegesis of that passage.

I never once said it can be limited.  I asked you to answer who those brothers and sisters were in Matthew 13.  You haven't yet.  I'm still waiting.

QuoteSince Roman Catholics and us Orthodox specifically, clearly and rationally deny that we worship any other being other than the Holy Trinity, why do you keep impugning us with this false accusation?  That is the most unChristian and unloving thing I can imagine.

Now, you may not accept our argument and explanation.  Fine.  But, unless you can offer an argument in return that defeats our explanation and argument, then your rejection of what we are claiming is a matter of your own psychological state and not a matter of the argument and explanation itself.  To simply ignore that we deny such worship and to impugn us with such a false charge is utterly disrespectful.

I have yet to see a rational defense of Mary worship.  It's not unloving to point out idolatry.  It is not a false accusation.  The angels themselves rebuked the disciples for worshiping them.  You do the same to Mary, a MERE woman.  Was Mary sinless?

Oh yes, it's my "psychological state" which keeps me from seeing the truth behind why we should pray to and idolize a woman who sinned and required the atoning death of our Savior just like the rest of us.

janine:

Your post is entirely an account of your personal experience.  I can't (and won't) deny that experience.

But I will say that it is illegitimate to argue from your singular experience to generalities about what Catholics and Orthodox believe vis a vis Mary--especially since both Churches have explicit dogma, liturgy and practice which explicitly denies and argues against worshipping Mary.

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 08:06:24I never once said it can be limited.  I asked you to answer who those brothers and sisters were in Matthew 13.  You haven't yet.  I'm still waiting.

They were, as the word adelphos connotes, kinsmen of Jesus.  The degree of kinship, however, is not possible to delimit explicitly from the context.  It would take more evidence from the text (or from the testimony of the earliest Christians) to determine that.  Since the biblical texts do not delimit the degree of kinship, the only evidence we have is from the earliest Christians.  That evidence is divided: some of the early Christians testified that they were cousins of Jesus, other Christians testified that they were children of Joseph from a previous marriage.  There  has been no dogmatic pronouncements from the Church as to which is factual.  Both are plausible.

Of course, on strictly grammatical grounds, it is possible that the adelphoi/-ai mentioned are children of Mary.  But it is not grammatically required, so no dogmatic pronouncement can be made that they are.  And since historically there is no testimony from any early Christians that Jesus had brothers and sisters from Mary, but rather these were not Mary's children, then the biblical text does not likely mean what opponents of PVM make it to mean.

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 08:06:24I have yet to see a rational defense of Mary worship.

Good.  Because we do not offer a defense of Mary worship since we don't worship Mary.

But that's a slick statement.  Sort of like the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 08:06:24It's not unloving to point out idolatry.  It is not a false accusation.  The angels themselves rebuked the disciples for worshiping them.

Of course.  And since we are not committing idolatry regarding Mary, it IS unloving to accuse of such.

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 08:06:24You do the same to Mary, a MERE woman.

Let's see: we offer a rational argument that we do not.  Our church dogma, liturgy and practice forbids such worship.  And we explicitly deny that we do.

So, how is it that you falsely accuse us of such?

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 08:06:24Was Mary sinless?

This is a different subject relative to Mary's perpetual virginity.  We can deal with this is a separate thread.

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 08:06:24Oh yes, it's my "psychological state" which keeps me from seeing the truth behind why we should pray to and idolize a woman who sinned and required the atoning death of our Savior just like the rest of us.

No, it's your psychological state that refuses to honestly engage what we teach and practice, continually impugning us with false accusations.

CD Healy, I appreciate your patience.  Assuming I understand correctly, are you saying you talk to dead people and ask them to pray to God on your behalf?  Do you ask Saints only or do you ask deceased family members to pray to God?  Is this scriptural or something from the Pope? 

I apologize if I'm to blunt or sound rude but I'm trying to understand.

Quote from: Belinda on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 10:22:04CD Healy, I appreciate your patience.  Assuming I understand correctly, are you saying you talk to dead people and ask them to pray to God on your behalf?

No.  I only talk to people who are living.  If I ask the intercessions of ("pray to") the saints who are no longer living in this mortal life, I am not talking to dead people.  I'm talking to people who are more alive than I am right now.

I believe in the Resurrection and that, as Hebrews says, Jesus came to put death to death.  Don't you?  Then those who have died in Christ aren't dead, but alive in Christ.

Quote from: Belinda on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 10:22:04Do you ask Saints only or do you ask deceased family members to pray to God?

I cannot speak of the practices of the Roman Catholic Church, but in Orthodoxy we ask the intercessions of those who've been formally recognized as having great sanctity of life, as well as those of our family members who have died and gone to be with the Lord.  A case in point: one of our missionary families in our parish (who served in Albania), lost their wife/mother to cancer a bit more than a year ago.  By all accounts she exemplified a very holy life, but even though she is not formally recognized as a saint, her widower and children do ask her intercessions (since she died in the Lord), and we in our parish have also been encouraged to ask her to pray for us.

So, the answer to your question is both.

Quote from: Belinda on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 10:22:04Is this scriptural or something from the Pope?

It is from Scripture (see especially the great throne room chapters in Revelation as well as in Maccabees), and the entire Church Tradition speaks of it as well.

Since I am Orthodox, and since the Roman Bishop (the Pope) is in schism with the rest of the Orthodox Churches, I do not follow the authority of the Pope with respect to his office.  So long as his teaching conforms to the faith once for all delivered to the saints, which the Orthodox Church upholds, then I have no problem affirming and recognizing that.  And on a personal level I greatly admire and respect the current Pope (as I did the previous one).  In fact, the current Pope and I share the same patron saint, Benedict of Nursia.

QuoteThey were, as the word adelphos connotes, kinsmen of Jesus.  The degree of kinship, however, is not possible to delimit explicitly from the context.  It would take more evidence from the text (or from the testimony of the earliest Christians) to determine that.  Since the biblical texts do not delimit the degree of kinship, the only evidence we have is from the earliest Christians.  That evidence is divided: some of the early Christians testified that they were cousins of Jesus, other Christians testified that they were children of Joseph from a previous marriage.  There  has been no dogmatic pronouncements from the Church as to which is factual.  Both are plausible.

All this is arguing from the false presupposition that we need testimony, etc. to determine what is really a straightforward text. 

Matt. 13:55"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56"And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"

Well, here is your early testimony.  The people of Nazareth believed that these were Jesus' biological syblings.  Nowhere in any text does it hint that He had half-siblings from a previous marriage of Joseph (indeed, the idea that Joseph was remarried is astoundingly absurd...).  Also, notice that the siblings are not connected to Joseph.  The implication is that they were all assumed to be children of Mary (remember, these Nazarenes didn't believe in Jesus' special birth).  And Joseph, as usual, is not mentioned.  "Are they not all with us?" implies that Jesus' family was all connected.  There is no mention of kin from outside the specific family of Mary and Joseph, so anyone who does not read this text as referring to specific siblings (and from the Mary-Joseph marriage) has to practice a ridiculous amount of eisegesis to fit unknown persons into the "are they not all with us?"

Remember, these are the Nazarenes.  Their testimony is much better than the early Christians: they were closer to the scene and had no conception of Christianity as a religious movement.

QuoteBut it is not grammatically required, so no dogmatic pronouncement can be made that they are.  And since historically there is no testimony from any early Christians that Jesus had brothers and sisters from Mary, but rather these were not Mary's children, then the biblical text does not likely mean what opponents of PVM make it to mean.

Adelphos is not that ambiguous a term.  As stated before, it can mean other things than strictly biological siblings (in this case, half-siblings), but context provides abundantly clear evidence that the brethren and sisters in Matthew 13 are assumed to be, by the people closest to the family, Jesus' biological siblings.

QuoteGood.  Because we do not offer a defense of Mary worship since we don't worship Mary.

But that's a slick statement.  Sort of like the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Do I really have to outline how Catholic "praise" of Mary is really idolatry?  "It's not worship, therefore we don't have to defend it."  Well, the first assertion is a fallacy.  Of course it wouldn't be necessary to defend a misnomer; but that's not the case.

QuoteAnd since we are not committing idolatry regarding Mary, it IS unloving to accuse of such.

To whom did Pope John Paul II give all the glory for restoring his life after he was shot?

Quote from: some prayer from Catholicism"Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy!  Our life, our sweetness and our hope!  To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve.  To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping, in this valley of tears.  Turn, then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us; and after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus.  O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.

Haha, I found some great Papal quotes:

Pope Pius IX: "Our salvation is based upon the holy Virgin... so that if there is any hope and spiritual healing for us we receive it solely and uniquely from her.

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 11:54:24All this is arguing from the false presupposition that we need testimony, etc. to determine what is really a straightforward text.

You assert that it's straightforward, but assertion is not proof.  You need argument.  So let's look at your argument: 

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 11:54:24Matt. 13:55"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56"And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"

Well, here is your early testimony.  The people of Nazareth believed that these were Jesus' biological syblings.

An assertion without proof.  How do you know that they believed they were children of the same mother?  Because you already assume that that's what the word means!  Very slick.

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 11:54:24Nowhere in any text does it hint that He had half-siblings from a previous marriage of Joseph (indeed, the idea that Joseph was remarried is astoundingly absurd...).

Ah, yes, the positive proof from a negative inference.  Since the text doesn't positively say X, then it must mean Y.  Logical fallacy.

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 11:54:24Also, notice that the siblings are not connected to Joseph.  The implication is that they were all assumed to be children of Mary (remember, these Nazarenes didn't believe in Jesus' special birth).  And Joseph, as usual, is not mentioned.

Um, cuz, um, well, maybe he was dead?  The vast majority of Christian opinion (Protestant, Roman and Orthodox), believes that Joseph died well before Jesus' public ministry.

But once again,  you're assuming that since Mary is the only one mentioned, then they must be her children.  Logical fallacy of begging the question.

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 11:54:24"Are they not all with us?" implies that Jesus' family was all connected.  There is no mention of kin from outside the specific family of Mary and Joseph, so anyone who does not read this text as referring to specific siblings (and from the Mary-Joseph marriage) has to practice a ridiculous amount of eisegesis to fit unknown persons into the "are they not all with us?"

You mean the same sort of eisegesis that assumes that since "there is no mention of kin from outside the specific [sic; i.e., nuclear] family of Mary and Joseph," that "anyone who does not read this text as referring to specific siblings (and from the Mary-Joseph marriage) has to practice a ridiculous amount of eisegesis"?

The "are they not all with us" is simply a reference to the kin just mentioned.  But that in no way answers, as you have not provided any evidence so to answer, the specific degree of kinship with Jesus.

Once again, biblical usage of adelphos is very clear.  You are assuming a twenty-first century American/European understanding of the nuclear family on a first century Middle Eastern family structure.

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 11:54:24Remember, these are the Nazarenes.  Their testimony is much better than the early Christians: they were closer to the scene and had no conception of Christianity as a religious movement.

Well all the question begging in  your statement aside, yes, indeed, the Nazarenes would know a great deal.  What you haven't done, however, is to prove that their understanding of the degree of kinship of adelphos is the same you're proposing.

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 11:54:24Adelphos is not that ambiguous a term.  As stated before, it can mean other things than strictly biological siblings (in this case, half-siblings), but context provides abundantly clear evidence that the brethren and sisters in Matthew 13 are assumed to be, by the people closest to the family, Jesus' biological siblings.

Nope.  See above.

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 11:54:24Do I really have to outline how Catholic "praise" of Mary is really idolatry?

No, what you have to do, is take the explanations and arguments given and deal with them honestly.

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 11:54:24"It's not worship, therefore we don't have to defend it."  Well, the first assertion is a fallacy.

A denial cannot be a fallacy.  It's just a simple denial.  But the hypothetical proposition is clear enough; i.e., "If it's not worship, we don't have to defend it."  Affirmation of antecedent: it's not worship; logically valid conclusion: then we don't have to defend it.

No fallacy here.  You're mistaken.

You would have to demonstrate that a) the antecedent (it's not worship), is, in fact false (i.e., it IS worship).

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 11:54:24

Quote from: some prayer from Catholicism“Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy!  Our life, our sweetness and our hope!  To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve.  To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping, in this valley of tears.  Turn, then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us; and after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus.  O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.”

Advocate?  Uh, that would be Jesus...

Do you ever pray for anyone else?  If so, then you have become their advocate.  That's what the prayer means: Mary prays for us, and therefore is our advocate.

Of course, if you want to suggest that none of us should ever pray for anyone else, since, after all, Jesus is their Advocate, then go ahead.

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 11:54:24I have yet to see the rational argument.  And people deny things, officially, all the time.  Actions speak louder than words.

Ah, yes, the infallible interpreter fallacy.  Don't take people at their word, because you can see into their hearts and know what they're really doing.

Nice.

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 11:54:24Woah, woah.  Nice evasion.  The two questions are completely separate.  Was Mary sinless?

Open a different thread and I'll be glad to deal with that topic.  Right now we're dealing with PVM.

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 13:24:27
Haha, I found some great Papal quotes:

Pope Pius IX: “Our salvation is based upon the holy Virgin... so that if there is any hope and spiritual healing for us we receive it solely and uniquely from her.”

Strange, since she rejoiced in the birth of her Savior (i.e., Jesus). Luke 1:46-47...

And even stranger, if she was sinless, why did she call Him her savior?

Let's see, did Mary give birth to our Savior or not?  Did anyone else but Mary give birth to the Savior?  So, then, our salvation is, in one sense, dependent upon Mary's acceptance of God's mission for her.  And since no one else but Mary did that, since God (Jesus) only has one Mother, then, she is unique among all humans in that regard.

Nope.  No problems there.

Ask your sinless question in a different thread.  (Hint: there are two aspects of salvation, that from personal guilt and that from ancestral/Adamic sin.)

Quote from: CDHealy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 10:33:24


It is from Scripture (see especially the great throne room chapters in Revelation as well as in Maccabees), and the entire Church Tradition speaks of it as well.

I'll spend some time in Revelation and see if I can find what your talking about.  I have a ton of Christian ancestors who I can tap into.  No one else in my family is making requests of them and I know I can put them work.

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 13:24:27
Haha, I found some great Papal quotes:

Pope Pius IX: "Our salvation is based upon the holy Virgin... so that if there is any hope and spiritual healing for us we receive it solely and uniquely from her.

QuoteAn assertion without proof.  How do you know that they believed they were children of the same mother?  Because you already assume that that's what the word means!  Very slick.

Inductive reasoning, as stated before.

QuoteAh, yes, the positive proof from a negative inference.  Since the text doesn't positively say X, then it must mean Y.  Logical fallacy.

Ah, short-quoting people.  Dishonest.

QuoteA denial cannot be a fallacy.  It's just a simple denial.  But the hypothetical proposition is clear enough; i.e., "If it's not worship, we don't have to defend it."  Affirmation of antecedent: it's not worship; logically valid conclusion: then we don't have to defend it.

No fallacy here.  You're mistaken.

You would have to demonstrate that a) the antecedent (it's not worship), is, in fact false (i.e., it IS worship).

I used fallacy inappropriately.  I meant "incorrect statement."

QuoteAh, yes, the infallible interpreter fallacy.  Don't take people at their word, because you can see into their hearts and know what they're really doing.

Nice.

Actions speak louder than words.  That is, external actions.

QuoteLet's see, did Mary give birth to our Savior or not?  Did anyone else but Mary give birth to the Savior?  So, then, our salvation is, in one sense, dependent upon Mary's acceptance of God's mission for her.  And since no one else but Mary did that, since God (Jesus) only has one Mother, then, she is unique among all humans in that regard.

Quoteif there is any hope and spiritual healing for us we receive it solely and uniquely from her

You and the Papacy need to get together on this... He doesn't seem so ambiguous.

We receive hope and spiritual healing solely from Mary?  I'm hoping the full document he adds something like, "That is, through Mary from her Son."  No?

QuoteAsk your sinless question in a different thread.  (Hint: there are two aspects of salvation, that from personal guilt and that from ancestral/Adamic sin.)

Go ahead.

QuoteWe did recieve it "solely and uniquely from her"--she is the mother of our Savior...correct?

We receive what from her?  Hope and spiritual healing?  Come on, broach.

I skipped certain points so I could post this one distinctively.  Though I still stand by what I said regarding NT references to Christ's siblings, we find the most support for that concept in the OT.

Psalm 69:8I have become estranged from my brothers
         And an alien to my mother's sons.

Clearly this Psalm is a Messianic Psalm.  No, not all of it applies to Jesus, but we know verse 8 does because it has corresponding references in the NT.  John 7:5For not even His brothers were believing in Him.  And I believe somewhere in Mark, Mary questions His actions.

Fire:

You keep assuming the degree of kinship of adelphos is of the same mother.

But you haven't proven it.

You can keep assuming it till Jesus comes, but until you prove it all you are doing is simply asserting your opinion with no proof.

But thanks for playing anyway.

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 12:46:33

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 09:43:32How do you know they didn't?

How do you  know they did?  You can't appeal to the adelphos cognates since that's inconclusive.  Same thing for "until."

Because married couples are biblically mandated to have sexual relations.. so if she didn't have relations with Joseph, she was sinning.

Quote from: Tantor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 10:04:39

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 12:46:33

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 09:43:32How do you know they didn't?

How do you  know they did?  You can't appeal to the adelphos cognates since that's inconclusive.  Same thing for "until."

Because married couples are biblically mandated to have sexual relations.. so if she didn't have relations with Joseph, she was sinning.

So let me get this straight....

If a couple decides, for whatever reason, not to engage in sexual relations, they are sinning?

You can't be serious...

Quote from: broach972 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 10:38:20

Quote from: Tantor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 10:04:39

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 12:46:33

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 09:43:32How do you know they didn't?

How do you  know they did?  You can't appeal to the adelphos cognates since that's inconclusive.  Same thing for "until."

Because married couples are biblically mandated to have sexual relations.. so if she didn't have relations with Joseph, she was sinning.

So let me get this straight....

If a couple decides, for whatever reason, not to engage in sexual relations, they are sinning?

You can't be serious...

Quote
1 Corinthians 7
Marriage
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

I thought you knew your scriptures better then that!

Quote from: Tantor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 10:50:09

Quote from: broach972 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 10:38:20

Quote from: Tantor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 10:04:39

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 12:46:33

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 09:43:32How do you know they didn't?

How do you  know they did?  You can't appeal to the adelphos cognates since that's inconclusive.  Same thing for "until."

Because married couples are biblically mandated to have sexual relations.. so if she didn't have relations with Joseph, she was sinning.

So let me get this straight....

If a couple decides, for whatever reason, not to engage in sexual relations, they are sinning?

You can't be serious...

Quote
1 Corinthians 7
Marriage
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

I thought you knew your scriptures better then that!

I do know them.  I just don't agree with your assessment because there is so much wrong with your reasoning.  What if a couple is unable to engage in such actions due to health or medical reasons?  Are they sinning?  What if a couple decides together not to engage in such actions and the "lack of self-control" is not an issue?

I could assume that such a deree could certainly apply to the ordinary marriage arrangement.  However, I would consider Mary's and Joseph's situation to be quite extraordinary.

Besides, when was Corinthians written?

I wouldnt consider Mary and Joseph's marriage out of the ordinary at all.  Joseph just put his marital obligations on hold until Mary gave birth and then it was back to normal.  If Joseph had not married her then you might have a point, but they did get married.

And as far as we know Mary and Joseph did not have some sort of medical issues that would prevent them from fulfilling their mandated marital obligations.

To assume that Mary was a virgin the rest of her life is just pure fantasy.

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 19:06:41

QuoteThat is why Uzzah was struck down: not because he touched a gold-plated wood box that God made a rule about not touching, but, rather, because that gold-plated wood box had God's presence dwelling in it which made that box (the ark) utterly holy.  Uzzah's presumption was that it was just a gold-plated box.

Uzzah reached out to keep the ark from falling to the ground.  He was well aware what was in the box, given his position.  Only certain people could carry the Ark according to Jewish tradition.  I want to say it was the Levites, but I don't remember the exact group. [EDIT: Kohathite]

Actually, if Uzzah was "well aware," then he knew good and well that God had proscribed for the Ark to be carried by poles, and not driven on a cart.  If the Israelites would not have mishandled the Ark, then Uzzah would not have had to reach out to steady it.

Here's a question for anyone who doubts Mary's perpetual virginity:

If Jesus had all of these brothers and sisters, why do you think that our Lord, when he was hanging on the cross, entrusted Mary to John?

Why would John need to take care of her if there were family members to do it?

Quote from: broach972 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 10:38:20

Quote from: Tantor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 10:04:39

Quote from: CDHealy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 12:46:33

Quote from: Ek Pyros on Wed Apr 02, 2008 - 09:43:32How do you know they didn't?

How do you  know they did?  You can't appeal to the adelphos cognates since that's inconclusive.  Same thing for "until."

Because married couples are biblically mandated to have sexual relations.. so if she didn't have relations with Joseph, she was sinning.

So let me get this straight....

If a couple decides, for whatever reason, not to engage in sexual relations, they are sinning?

You can't be serious...

They are according to the NT... for Paul said to not deny one another except for prayer and fasting.  And he admonished to only do that for a time, and to return to one another. So, if they decided to just give up sex.... they would be outside of the will of God for marriage, and that would be sin. Yes, it would be.

Gosh... any married Catholic can tell you that. 

Quote from: tidbit on Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 13:32:09
Here's a question for anyone who doubts Mary's perpetual virginity:

If Jesus had all of these brothers and sisters, why do you think that our Lord, when he was hanging on the cross, entrusted Mary to John?

Why would John need to take care of her if there were family members to do it?

Because he was the only one faithful enough to be present.  Which also begs the question.. where is Joseph in this whole thing?

Anyhow, Mary could be in hell for all we know... only God knows who is in heaven.

Quote from: tidbit on Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 13:32:09
Here's a question for anyone who doubts Mary's perpetual virginity:

If Jesus had all of these brothers and sisters, why do you think that our Lord, when he was hanging on the cross, entrusted Mary to John?

Why would John need to take care of her if there were family members to do it?

I think He was giving John the duty to oversee her care.  That did not mean that John was the only one who took care of her. The Bible indicates that some of His brothers and sisters were not believers, that is one reason.  His sisters would not have been given the care, because they didn't do that.  A man would be seeing to her care.  And, John was the closest of the disciples to Jesus, according to the word... And He may have done it for that reason.  There are many many reasons it was John.  The crowd was huge... and at the foot of the cross were the few the soldiers allowed there....  John was there, and Mary was there...  We know that.

I have children... I have family, my husband has family, and some of them are Catholics and some are not saved...  Truely the care of my own children would go to my closest saved friend before anyone not saved or of the Catholic church.  Related or not.  It's called trusting them to teach them and to live by what you believe and would want them to be taught. Not who is the closest relative.

Quote from: kensington on Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 13:38:08

Quote from: tidbit on Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 13:32:09
Here's a question for anyone who doubts Mary's perpetual virginity:

If Jesus had all of these brothers and sisters, why do you think that our Lord, when he was hanging on the cross, entrusted Mary to John?

Why would John need to take care of her if there were family members to do it?

I think He was giving John the duty to oversee her care.  That did not mean that John was the only one who took care of her. The Bible indicates that some of His brothers and sisters were not believers, that is one reason.  His sisters would not have been given the care, because they didn't do that.  A man would be seeing to her care.  And, John was the closest of the disciples to Jesus, according to the word... And He may have done it for that reason.  There are many many reasons it was John.  The crowd was huge... and at the foot of the cross were the few the soldiers allowed there....  John was there, and Mary was there...  We know that.

I have children... I have family, my husband has family, and some of them are Catholics and some are not saved...  Truely the care of my own children would go to my closest saved friend before anyone not saved or of the Catholic church.  Related or not.  It's called trusting them to teach them and to live by what you believe and would want them to be taught. Not who is the closest relative.

Anyone with any sense of history, not to mention the culture, knew that this did not happen during that time.  Family members were not left to be taken care of strangers, especially if family members were alive.

John was not a stranger... He was John the Beloved. Who walked with Him and talked with Him. 

What stranger are you speaking of?  What a silly implication.

And yet... just a short time later... Paul actually comes right out and says to us that the "Church" should be taking care of widows.  And in James, the church is admonished to care for both Widows and children.

So... I don't know what you mean by strangers.