Bruce S Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 (edited) Grin. The one thing that sticks out here clearly, is that God commanded a wife to have sexual relations with her husband, and God wanted Jesus to have a normal human experience, to me, that would include a normal family, brothers, sisters, and a Mother and Father, that were good Jews. Jewish law even goes so far as to actually specify [yeah, they really do] how often sexual intercourse is REQUIRED of a wife. Gotta love the Jews, they have a rule for everything. The salvation story doesn't hang on Mary, it hangs on the cross. You are trying to prove the early Church wrong. Show quotes where APOSTLES or anyone BEFORE 100 AD agrees with you. After that, the body of mysticism started being developed, and the encounters with female dieties in Greek lands began to introduce elements that were external to the story of Christ coming, dying, and HIS salvation. The entire Mary "cult" began to grow later. Mary had a SPECIFIED role, it was fulfilled. Acts, the best history of the period after the resurrection had Her playing an almost miniscule role, and then fading out completely after Pentecost. Edited December 29, 2003 by Bruce S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 Grin. The one thing that sticks out here clearly, is that God commanded a wife to have sexual relations with her husband, and God wanted Jesus to have a normal human experience, to me, that would include a normal family, brothers, sisters, and a Mother and Father, that were good Jews. Jewish law even goes so far as to actually specify [yeah, they really do] how often sexual intercourse is REQUIRED of a wife. Gotta love the Jews, they have a rule for everything. The salvation story doesn't hang on Mary, it hangs on the cross. Show quotes where APOSTLES or anyone BEFORE 100 AD agrees with you. After that, the body of mysticism started being developed, and the encounters with female dieties in Greek lands began to introduce elements that were external to the story of Christ coming, dying, and HIS salvation. The entire Mary "cult" began to grow later. Mary had a SPECIFIED role, it was fulfilled. Acts, the best history of the period after the resurrection had Her playing an almost miniscule role, and then fading out completely after Pentecost. You assume the celibacy in and out marriage was unknown to the jews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce S Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 You assume the celibacy in and out marriage was unknown to the jews. Ah...the ESSENE doctrines. Arianism for Jews. Interesting sideline. One of the most interesting things to explore is the history of Simon Magus/John the Baptiser/Jesus. Fascinating. One the BEST heretical books going, is the TEMPLAR REVELATIONS, really got me thinking on the similarities between Essene teachings and the teachings of Jesus, especially the Sermon on the Mount. What I didn't know, was there were different Essene communities in Israel/Galilee/Perea. We all sort of assumed that Qumran was the only one, it wasn't. Some think the community known to have been near Nazareth may have been one where the teachings were learned by young Jesus. And yes, Jews did practice celibacy, and it is ALWAYS condemned by mainstream Judaism, always. God provided a NORMAL human family for Jesus, as he provided a normal eating, drinking, walking, life, including pain, hurt, suffering, and ultimately death. Jesus didn't come to live in a world created by Catholics to advance the themes they love so dearly that are extra biblical. What happened is known, and one can be FULLY Catholic/catholic without those extra teachings. Just go for the basics, and pay lip service to the add-ons to keep your fellow Catholics happy. You are gonna go to heaven if Mary was a virgin after birth, or not. It isn't necessary to the salvation message one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 hyper posted something about this in another thread--thought i'd make a new one to keep it clean I've seen many of you argue that Mary never had any other children. Is there a plain interpretation here that I'm missing? I read this and automatically assume Mary had other children, and I am not aware of any cultural tidbits that may spin this in a different direction. How do you know these are children by Mary? How do you know these aren't children of Joseph by a previous marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce S Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 How do you know these are children by Mary? How do you know these aren't children of Joseph by a previous marriage? OK. Reverse it. Prove they were? I'm going to go with the OBVIOUS, and Occam's Razor. The simple answer is normally the true one, the one that takes reams of convoluted reasoning isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 OK. Reverse it. Prove they were? I'm going to go with the OBVIOUS, and Occam's Razor. The simple answer is normally the true one, the one that takes reams of convoluted reasoning isn't. Why should we have to prove it? It's YOUSE GUYS who are trying to start the brouhaha, so YOU prove to me that they are by Mary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce S Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 To me it isn't even important. My denomination doesn't have Mary as a Perpetual Virgin, so we don't care about it. Sorry. It is important to Catholics, after all not us. Let's just agree that this a particular "distinctive" of the Catholic Church, and a few other groups, and isn't even important to Christianity. It isn't the message, just a sideline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 To me it isn't even important. My denomination doesn't have Mary as a Perpetual Virgin, so we don't care about it. Sorry. It is important to Catholics, after all not us. Let's just agree that this a particular "distinctive" of the Catholic Church, and a few other groups, and isn't even important to Christianity. It isn't the message, just a sideline. Nope, we will agree its normative and you guys are off base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted December 29, 2003 Author Share Posted December 29, 2003 normative? the normal interpretation of those passages in the gospels of Mary's kids would be that they are siblings first. It is only Catholicism which must say they are not so she can be a perpetual virgin. Agreed with Bruce S here, this is just a sideline kindof thing, we really don't care if she was or wasn't. It seems to be a shame if she was however, Ecclesiastes talks highly of the woman of ones youth, also Proverbs, and Song of Solomon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 Luther, Calvin, Zwingli they all believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (which makes it safe to say they didn't believe she had other kids). I'm sure the Luther thing comes as no surprise, but so did CALVIN and Zwingli. Re: some other things on this thread, I think that Christology cannot help, but suffer when Mariology is neglected. He took His human nature from her, the Marian Doctrines always point to Christ's Deity. Where the mother is forgotten their to the Son will be forgotten in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted December 29, 2003 Author Share Posted December 29, 2003 I don't really believe that Christology suffers. Currently I am under the impression that the sin nature passes through the male, There are numbers OT passages which seem to indicate this. Despite that, Mary having kids afterwards or not seems irrelevant. Sex is not a sin, but a gift from God in itself. I would imagine.. poor Joseph, if she did decide to be perpetually a virgin :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 Our Lady's ever-virginity points to the uniqueness of Christ. Our Lady's Immaculate Conception points to the mystery of the incarnation, it is all about the God-Man. His Mother could have had other children without it affecting her holiness or His divinity, but the faact remains that there is no evidence to say she had other children and the constant teaching of the Catholic (and Orthodox) Church (not to mention the Muslims) is that she was "Virgin, Ever-Virgin". The New Eve as Christ was the New Adam. And yes, I imagine that Saint Joseph a man with all the normal impulses and desires of his sex and married to a woman he loved, must ahve found her virginity (and living with two sinless people) to be a bit trying. I also think she may have found it trying as well (she was tempted in the same ways that we all are); but she realized the importance of the role she had been given as Mother of God, it wouldn't have been fair to her other children. There's something from one of the apocryphal books about a nurse who helped with the delivery of Our Lord doubting Our Lady's virginity. She checked and I do believe her entire hand was consumed by flames. Might give a new perspective on Saint Joseph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin D Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 Ok my Catholic brothers and sisters, let's just calm down. We don't want to set this thread on fire, or dUSt the Firechief and his Firemen (the Moderators) will storm this thread. Well before asking my question to my non-Catholic brothers and sisters, I would like to provide something that should be interesting. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm Prior to the time of Jerome, the standard theory was that they were Jesus’ "brothers" who were sons of Joseph though not of Mary. According to this view, Joseph was a widower at the time he married Mary. He had children from his first marriage (who would be older than Jesus, explaining their attitude toward him). This is mentioned in a number of early Christian writings. One work, known as the Proto-evangelium of James (A.D. 125) records that Joseph was selected from a group of widowers to serve as the husband/protector of Mary, who was a virgin consecrated to God. When he was chosen, Joseph objected: "I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl" (4:8–9). (quote from Catholic Answers) Now on to my question. Why do Protestants usually (not always) ignore the writings of the Church Fathers? Of course, they aren't Godly inspired, but they are still reliable. It shows us what the Early Christians taught and believed, in the early Christian Church (aka Catholic Church). To ignore these, is to ignore actual history. By using that logic, you have a right to ignore the history of WWII and claim it was just "made up". I just don't understand, and I hope someone can answer me this question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted December 29, 2003 Author Share Posted December 29, 2003 and living with two sinless people I've heard on this board that Mary had no original sin, but I believe that person also said she sinner during her life. If she really never sinned, why was she not the perfect sacrifice to redeem humanity? . Of course she couldn't raise herself from the dead to be the eternal king mentioned in the Davidic Covenant, but if she was sinless, then she definitely could have redeemed humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mulls Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 (edited) would anything actually be taken away from Mary if she did in fact have other children? meaning would this change Catholics' relationship with her, or would it affect her own relationship with God or Jesus? just wondering, i'll try to rephrase if this doesn't make sense. Edited December 29, 2003 by mulls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now