This heretical teaching is disproven.

[tango]

Precisely! God made sure the ark that would carry His written Word be made with the best and purest materials, why would He put less Thought and care into the ark that would carry His Word made flesh: Himself: the Most Pure, Holy, and Perfect One, by Incarnating Himself in an impure woman? God, the Most Pure, Holy and Perfect One, came down from Heaven, a place where unholiness and impurity cannot dwell, and took form within Her, and thus Her Body and Spirit had to have already been so Holy, Pure, and Perfect (in part by His doing), as to be Second only to God, in order to be a Heaven on Earth for Him. Would God not also want a Spouse and Father of Holiness and Purity for such a Woman as Mary and Her Son (God Incarnate), rather than an average impure male? Could God not bring two holy and pure people together in order to be each other's Spouses and the parents of God Incarnate?

This sounds like you're saying sex is inherently sinful, when it was God who told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply.

Besides, nobody is disputing that Mary was a virgin before Jesus was born. If you're saying Mary had to remain a virgin because otherwise she was somehow defiled that requires sex with her husband to be a sinful act, which it clearly isn't.

It sounds like your reasoning is shifting like the sands.

 

[tango]

The four Gospels of Christ lack an extensive, much less complete, detailing of Joseph's and Mary's life, which means there's true details about them that isn't going to be found in Scripture, but rather elsewhere. Are you going to automatically assume that details about them found elsewhere are false? I hope not, just as you shouldn't automatically assume they are true, but the fact remains that there are true details, and they aren't going to be found in Scripture.

Where Scripture is silent we can conclude that we don't know, which presumably means it doesn't matter.

Pointing out the holes in your argument that Mary was a perpetual virgin doesn't mean that she was not a perpetual virgin, it simply means we don't know. People aren't assuming things are false based on Scriptural silence, people are pointing out that you are trying to force them to be true despite Scriptural silence. When the reality is that we don't know it means Mary might have been a perpetual virgin, or she and Joseph might have so much sex it would make a modern day porn producer blush, or they might have been somewhere in between. Scripture doesn't offer details (not entirely surprisingly), and therefore we can be fairly confident it doesn't matter.

And, who I introduced "outside of Scripture" in post #115 is a woman who was Jesus's spokesperson in modern times. Jesus Himself explains why Mary needed to be and was so Holy, Pure, and Perfect in Body and Spirit as to be Second only to God. This knowledge is a gift from God.

Someone you claim is Jesus' spokesperson. Someone who may or may not have anything useful to say.

I answered this in post #115. The High Priest of the Temple appointed Joseph to be Mary's Spouse, and She told Joseph of Her vow to remain chaste for God, and Joseph, who was a Nazirite (Num. 6), decided to remain chaste for God within their marriage as well.

You "supported" your claim by referring to some new material you decided to introduce, that may or may not have any value. If the best appeal you have is something outside of Scripture it's perhaps best regarded as speculation.

 

[Soulx3]

This world and this life are not identical to the ones to come after physical death.

In what way(s) are you referring?

It's so, just as I said.

You're saying that now, but before you said "not so."

The point, however, is that there is no reason to suppose that Scripture is defective...

I never said Scripture is defective. I said it lacks an extensive, much complete, detailing of Joseph's and Mary's life.

At the same time, it doesn't mean that we are at liberty to add to God's word in order to make revelation be something other than what God intended.

Obviously, no one should just make stuff up and claim it comes from God, yet some do, but Jesus told us how to discern. Despite this, no one can forbid God from having spokespersons, and He's had them, even in modern times, and without your knowledge and approval. Maria Valtorta was one of them, and just because Jesus said things to her you don't want to hear, that doesn't mean those revelations aren't true, nor not what God intended.

Presumably your reasoning would require that once Jesus left that womb of the utterly sinless woman he entered into a world that was also utterly without impurity and sin? In which case there was no need for him to come at all.

My reasoning wouldn't require that. So, I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but feel free to explain.

This sounds like you're saying sex is inherently sinful, when it was God who told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply.

... If you're saying Mary had to remain a virgin because otherwise she was somehow defiled that requires sex with her husband to be a sinful act, which it clearly isn't.

I wasn't talking about the act of sexual intercourse. So, I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but feel free to explain.

or she and Joseph might have so much sex it would make a modern day porn producer blush,...

Would you ask Jesus, "Did Joseph and your Mother have so much sex it would make a modern day porn producer blush?" I hope not. You should feel ashamed for speaking so irreverently about His Mother and Joseph, as well as the act of sex itself, an act where a man and woman can co-create with God.

...people are pointing out that you are trying to force them to be true despite Scriptural silence.

You "supported" your claim by referring to some new material you decided to introduce, that may or may not have any value. If the best appeal you have is something outside of Scripture it's perhaps best regarded as speculation.

I'm not forcing anything to be true, because there's no need to do that. I'm explaining where and why it's indicated in Scripture that Mary took a vow of perpetual chastity, as well as provided evidence from Jesus through His spokesperson Maria Valtorta that directly confirms it, as well as other beliefs. You can either accept that there are false and true spokespersons of God, and do the work of discernment case by case, or you can bury your head in the sand, and pretend that there aren't.

 

[Albion]

I never said Scripture is defective. I said it lacks an extensive, much complete, detailing of Joseph's and Mary's life.

I would consider that to mean defective. After all, you are arguing that critical information, information that bears upon a dogma of your church, is missing from the revelation God gave to mankind. Yet its absence from Scripture (and from Tradition as well) is supposedly remedied by something you supplemented it with but which most Christians have never even heard of.

Obviously, no one should just make stuff up and claim it comes from God, yet some do, but Jesus told us how to discern. Despite this, no one can forbid God from having spokespersons, and He's had them, even in modern times, and without your knowledge and approval. Maria Valtorta was one of them, and just because Jesus said things to her you don't want to hear, that doesn't mean those revelations aren't true, nor not what God intended.

Well, you are free to believe Maria Valtorta or read tea leaves or go with one of a dozen other mystics, but none of that is "Bible Study." Consequently, it is for another forum, not this one.

 

[tango]

Would you ask Jesus, "Did Joseph and your Mother have so much sex it would make a modern day porn producer blush?" I hope not. You should feel ashamed for speaking so irreverently about His Mother and Joseph, as well as the act of sex itself, an act where a man and woman can co-create with God.

I'm not ashamed of anything. God created sex for husband and wife to enjoy. If Mary and Joseph enjoyed this gift that God created, good for them. How is it any more irreverent for them to enjoy God's gift than it is for my wife and I to enjoy that same gift?

I wouldn't specifically ask Jesus the question, for the same reason I wouldn't ask you about your sex life. It's none of my business. It makes no difference to me whether Mary and Joseph had lots of sex, moderate amounts of sex, or no sex at all.

I'm not forcing anything to be true, because there's no need to do that. I'm explaining where and why it's indicated in Scripture that Mary took a vow of perpetual chastity, as well as provided evidence from Jesus through His spokesperson Maria Valtorta that directly confirms it, as well as other beliefs. You can either accept that there are false and true spokespersons of God, and do the work of discernment case by case, or you can bury your head in the sand, and pretend that there aren't.

Except you provided precisely nothing from Scripture that proves anything of the sort. You provided a few sections that don't prove it and then added lots of speculation to try and pull the conclusion from the text that doesn't support it. Then you waited 100+ posts before introducing something from outside the Bible that you insist is true.

It's far from clear what your comment about true and false spokespersons has to do with anything, and your comment about burying my head in the sand is totally unrelated to the topic of discussion. But by all means continue to derail, given we're almost 150 posts in and you still appear unable to demonstrate why your pet theory must be true.

 

[tango]

I would consider that to mean defective. After all, you are arguing that critical information, information that bears upon a dogma of your church, is missing from the revelation God gave to mankind. Yet its absence from Scripture (and from Tradition as well) is supposedly remedied by something you supplemented it with but which most Christians have never even heard of.

If something was important we might have expected God to have thought of it, and made a point to make a note of it somewhere. Maybe in a scroll or something, that could be compiled into a book that would be preserved for future generations to read.

Perhaps God just forgot - in all the excitement perhaps it just slipped his mind. At least now he has an opportunity to make amends thanks to an internet discussion forum.

 

[Soulx3]

I would consider that to mean defective. After all, you are arguing that critical information, information that bears upon a dogma of your church, is missing from the revelation God gave to mankind. Yet its absence from Scripture (and from Tradition as well) is supposedly remedied by something you supplemented it with but which most Christians have never even heard of.

I didn't say any dogma is missing in Scripture, but rather that Scripture lacks an extensive, much less complete, detailing on the lives of Joseph and Mary, and everyone else mentioned in Scripture. And, Jesus spoke a lot more about topics than the few paragraphs we have. So, if you automatically reject Maria Valtorta, or anyone else, without even attempting to discern, that implies you've made up your mind that God has nothing else to say, wouldn't elaborate on truths, or repeat Himself, etc., nor speak continue to speak through His own creation, despite Scripture not saying God wouldn't.

I'm not ashamed of anything. God created sex for husband and wife to enjoy. If Mary and Joseph enjoyed this gift that God created, good for them. How is it any more irreverent for them to enjoy God's gift than it is for my wife and I to enjoy that same gift?

I wouldn't specifically ask Jesus the question, for the same reason I wouldn't ask you about your sex life. It's none of my business. It makes no difference to me whether Mary and Joseph had lots of sex, moderate amounts of sex, or no sex at all.

God didn't intend a husband and wife to commit the act of sexual intercourse out of selfishness and lust, but rather with the intention of creating souls for Him. It's an act where a man and woman can co-create with God. That should be seen as a holy act, a privilege, and be spoken of and committed without making it about lust of the flesh, for lust gives birth to sin (Jas. 1:15). Therefore, your saying "or Joseph and Mary had so much sex it would make a modern day porn producer blush" and not being ashamed for it stems in part from ignorance, but it's still wrong, as well as crass.

And, if you really felt the "sex life" between Joseph and Mary was none of your business, then you wouldn't have engaged in the conversation of the perpetual virginity of Mary in the first place, and said things like, "Mary might have been a perpetual virgin, or she and Joseph might have so much sex it would make a modern day porn producer blush, or they might have been somewhere in between." You're only saying that now to avoid admitting that you wouldn't ask Jesus, "Did Joseph and your Mother have so much sex it would make a modern day porn producer blush?" because you know it's crass.

As for my "sex life," I'm 36 and have been chaste for the past eleven years so far. I've had sexual intercourse out of selfishness and lust of the flesh before, but in my spiritual development I've come to understand it's intended purpose: to co-create with one's husband/wife and God new souls for Heaven. Porn, inappropriate dressing, crass language, sex acts of a non-procreative nature, sex toys, masterbation, contraceptives, etc., it's all not of God.

Except you provided precisely nothing from Scripture that proves anything of the sort.

People deny facts everyday, so that statement doesn't mean anything.

It's far from clear what your comment about true and false spokespersons has to do with anything, and your comment about burying my head in the sand is totally unrelated to the topic of discussion.

I intended that to be said to Albion.

 

[Albion]

I didn't say any dogma is missing in Scripture, but rather that Scripture lacks an extensive, much less complete, detailing on the lives of Joseph and Mary. . .

In other words, incomplete, deficient, lacking material critical to the church's dogma.

And, Jesus spoke a lot more about topics than the few paragraphs we have.

Not an issue. We all know that to be true, but you are the one claiming that what you think is missing is revealed in the claims made by Maria Valtorta (and possibly other such people).

So, if you automatically reject Maria Valtorta, or anyone else, without even attempting to discern, that implies you've made up your mind that God has nothing else to say, wouldn't elaborate on truths, or repeat Himself, etc., nor speak continue to speak through His own creation, despite Scripture not saying God wouldn't.

I did discern and find Maria Voltorta not to be credible.

As was already noted, neither Scripture nor Tradition support your claims about Joseph and Mary, etc; and one or both of those are what determines doctrine in just about every denomination, yours included.

 

[Soulx3]

In other words, incomplete, deficient, lacking material critical to the church's dogma.

What dogma?

I'd rather you didn't attempt to save your argument by going on the offensive like that. I did discern and find Maria Voltorta not to be credible.

I didn't say you didn't discern. I said if you didn't discern. So, what about Maria Valtorta and which part of her writings did you discern? How did you discern?

Do you agree that there are false and true spokespersons of God, even in modern day?

Do you agree that God can/does elaborate on, or repeat known truths, and reveal knowledge currently unknown, to whomever whenever He wills?

As was already noted, neither Scripture nor Tradition support your claims about Joseph and Mary, etc; and one or both of those are what determines doctrine in just about every denomination, yours included.

People deny facts everyday, so that statement doesn't mean anything.

 

[tango]

God didn't intend a husband and wife to commit the act of sexual intercourse out of selfishness and lust, but rather with the intention of creating souls for Him. It's an act where a man and woman can co-create with God. That should be seen as a holy act, a privilege, and be spoken of and committed without making it about lust of the flesh, for lust gives birth to sin (Jas. 1:15). Therefore, your saying "or Joseph and Mary had so much sex it would make a modern day porn producer blush" and not being ashamed for it stems in part from ignorance, but it's still wrong, as well as crass.

On what basis do you believe that sex between husband and wife is purely to create children? Do you believe that a husband and wife who are unable to bear children should refrain from sex? If so, perhaps you could cite some Scripture to support your assertion.

And, if you really felt the "sex life" between Joseph and Mary was none of your business, then you wouldn't have engaged in the conversation of the perpetual virginity of Mary in the first place, and said things like, "Mary might have been a perpetual virgin, or she and Joseph might have so much sex it would make a modern day porn producer blush, or they might have been somewhere in between." You're only saying that now to avoid admitting that you wouldn't ask Jesus, "Did Joseph and your Mother have so much sex it would make a modern day porn producer blush?" because you know it's crass.

It's not crass to point out that we don't know something, and it doesn't violate the concept that someone's sex life is none of my business to point out that we don't know. Mary and Joseph's sex life isn't really any of your business either, and yet here you are insisting it was non-existent and saying it's some kind of heresy to believe otherwise.

As for my "sex life," I'm 36 and have been chaste for the past eleven years so far. I've had sexual intercourse out of selfishness and lust of the flesh before,

I'm not sure why you felt the need to share this but, you know, whatever...

but in my spiritual development I've come to understand it's intended purpose: to co-create with one's husband/wife and God new souls for Heaven. Porn, inappropriate dressing, crass language, sex acts of a non-procreative nature, sex toys, masterbation, contraceptives, etc., it's all not of God.

You've come to understand? On what basis have you come to understand? Do you have Scriptural support for this, or does it require ever-more twisting of tenses or introduction of things outside of Scripture? You're using lots of fine-sounding words that mean nothing. If anything what you're saying here sounds more like the kind of thing the Hare Krishnas would say about sex.

 

[Soulx3]

On what basis do you believe that sex between husband and wife is purely to create children?

You've come to understand? On what basis have you come to understand? Do you have Scriptural support for this, or does it require ever-more twisting of tenses or introduction of things outside of Scripture?

Again, I've never twisted tenses in this thread.

Now, in Scripture we read, "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth..." (Gen. 1:27-28). God told our first parents to procreate, that is the purpose of the act of sexual intercourse, not for any other reason, which includes selfishness and lust of the flesh, for lust conceived gives birth to sin (Jas. 1:15). Jesus elaborated on this truth to His spokesperson Maria Valtorta. So, I believe this is based on what God has said.

Do you believe that a husband and wife who are unable to bear children should refrain from sex?

No husband or wife, sterile/barren or not, should engage in sexual intercourse if they feel it would be out of selfishness and lust of the flesh, etc., but rather always with the intention to procreate, because if it's God's will for them to have a child or children, it will happen. There are plenty of examples of this in Scripture.

It's not crass to point out that we don't know something...

I never said it's crass to point out that we don't know something, but rather it's crass to speak of the Mother of God and Joseph thus: "or she (Mary) and Joseph might have so much sex it would make a modern day porn producer blush."

...it doesn't violate the concept that someone's sex life is none of my business to point out that we don't know.

I never said that it does. Albion said he wouldn't ask Jesus about His Mother's sex life, nor anyone, because it's none of his business, and that it makes no difference to him if Joseph and Mary "had lots of sex, moderate amounts of sex, or no sex at all." However, if he really wanted to avoid getting in Joseph and Mary's business, and if it really made no difference to him what their sex life was like, he wouldn't have engaged in a conversation about the perpetual virginity of Mary in the first place.

Mary and Joseph's sex life isn't really any of your business either, and yet here you are insisting it was non-existent.

Joseph and Mary didn't have a "sex life," but rather a chaste life, and they never said it couldn't be talked about. In fact, Jesus and Mary both spoke to Maria Valtorta about Her and Joseph's mutual vow of chastity for God in their marriage, etc. Maria was even shown the scenes, or visions, of Joseph and Mary speaking of their vow of chastity for God, their marriage ceremony, etc.

 

[tango]

Again, I've never twisted tenses in this thread.

Except that you have, repeatedly, when Mary remarked that "I am a virgin" and you insist that the present tense refers to the present and the indefinite future.

Now, in Scripture we read, "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth..." (Gen. 1:27-28). God told our first parents to procreate, that is the purpose of the act of sexual intercourse, not for any other reason, which includes selfishness and lust of the flesh, for lust conceived gives birth to sin (Jas. 1:15).

You've got some more speculation going on there. If sex wasn't meant to be enjoyed, why is it enjoyable? If it's purely to produce children why isn't it something that's really rather dull? Maybe God missed a trick there or something.

Jesus elaborated on this truth to His spokesperson Maria Valtorta. So, I believe this is based on what God has said.

You keep referring to this source that's outside of Scripture. You can believe what you want but if you demand others believe it too (as you do, if you brand people who don't believe it as heretics) you need something other than some random person from the middle ages. Unless you want to argue that God forgot to mention something until several centuries later.

No husband or wife, sterile/barren or not, should engage in sexual intercourse if they feel it would be out of selfishness and lust of the flesh, etc., but rather always with the intention to procreate, because if it's God's will for them to have a child or children, it will happen. There are plenty of examples of this in Scripture.

What do you base this assertion upon? You're making all sorts of claims and backing them with, well, nothing.

I never said it's crass to point out that we don't know something, but rather it's crass to speak of the Mother of God and Joseph thus: "or she (Mary) and Joseph might have so much sex it would make a modern day porn producer blush."

Why is it crass? Scripture is silent so we don't know. We can only speculate. If you want to believe in a certain level of sexual activity between Mary and Joseph, whether that's none at all or as much as it's humanly possible to bear, you may believe whatever you want in the face of Scriptural silence. The simple truth is that we don't know.

I never said that it does. Albion said he wouldn't ask Jesus about His Mother's sex life, nor anyone, because it's none of his business, and that it makes no difference to him if Joseph and Mary "had lots of sex, moderate amounts of sex, or no sex at all." However, if he really wanted to avoid getting in Joseph and Mary's business, and if it really made no difference to him what their sex life was like, he wouldn't have engaged in a conversation about the perpetual virginity of Mary in the first place.

Actually it was me who said that, and I'm not getting in Mary and Joseph's business because I'm not the one insisting that I know how much sex that had, or didn't have. I'm one of several saying we don't know because Scripture doesn't tell us. You're the one insisting that your answer is the one and only correct answer, but you're just ot backing it by anything at all.

Joseph and Mary didn't have a "sex life," but rather a chaste life, and they never said it couldn't be talked about. In fact, Jesus and Mary both spoke to Maria Valtorta about Her and Joseph's mutual vow of chastity for God in their marriage, etc. Maria was even shown the scenes, or visions, of Joseph and Mary speaking of their vow of chastity for God, their marriage ceremony, etc.

So you keep claiming. It's just that your claims of these visions are hard to verify. A person from hundreds of years ago claims to have had a vision of something that cannot be verified or falsified, so can only be filed under "we don't know". Much like the level of sexual activity between Mary and Joseph, I suppose.

 

[Soulx3]

Except that you have, repeatedly, when Mary remarked that "I am a virgin" and you insist that the present tense refers to the present and the indefinite future.

Again, I repeatedly said Mary stating that She's a virgin referred to the present-tense. I never said that statement is the sole proof She took a vow of perpetual chastity.

If sex wasn't meant to be enjoyed, why is it enjoyable? If it's purely to produce children why isn't it something that's really rather dull? Maybe God missed a trick there or something.

Enjoyable in what way?

What do you base this assertion upon?

Which part of the following is an assertion and why?

"No husband or wife, sterile/barren or not, should engage in sexual intercourse if they feel it would be out of selfishness and lust of the flesh, etc., but rather always with the intention to procreate, because if it's God's will for them to have a child or children, it will happen. There are plenty of examples of this in Scripture."

Why is it crass?

So, you wouldn't think it crass, or vulgar, to ask Jesus word for word, "Did Joseph and your Mother have so much sex it would make a modern day porn producer blush?"

I'm not getting in Mary and Joseph's business because I'm not the one insisting that I know how much sex that had, or didn't have. I'm one of several saying we don't know because Scripture doesn't tell us. You're the one insisting that your answer is the one and only correct answer, but you're just ot backing it by anything at all.

To get in someone's business about something means to "learn or give advice about something private." I'm not trying to learn about their "sex life" because I already learned they didn't have one, and it was never a private matter. You said you wouldn't ask Jesus about His Mother's sex life, nor anyone, because it's none of your business, and that it makes no difference to you if Joseph and Mary "had lots of sex, moderate amounts of sex, or no sex at all." However, if you really wanted to avoid getting in Joseph and Mary's business (attempting to learn about it one way or the other), and if it really made no difference to you what their sex life was like, you wouldn't have engaged in a conversation about the perpetual virginity of Mary in the first place.

 

[Soulx3]

You keep referring to this source that's outside of Scripture. You can believe what you want but if you demand others believe it too (as you do, if you brand people who don't believe it as heretics) you need something other than some random person from the middle ages. Unless you want to argue that God forgot to mention something until several centuries later.

It's just that your claims of these visions are hard to verify. A person from hundreds of years ago claims to have had a vision of something that cannot be verified or falsified, so can only be filed under "we don't know".

I never said people who don't believe Maria Valtorta was a spokesperson of God is a heretic. And, Maria Valtorta wasn't from the middle ages, or hundreds of years ago... Seeing as how you either didn't bother to research her at all, or researched poorly, I'll give you a brief backstory:

Maria Valtorta was born in 1897 and died in 1961. In 1943, She began taking dictation from Jesus and other heavenly persons, as well as receiving scenes, or visions from the life of Jesus. At Jesus’ request, she wrote everything she saw and heard, filling 122 notebooks totaling 15,000 pages. Maria received most of the revelations before 1947, but they continued until 1953. Her writings were compiled into the following books: The Gospel as Revealed to Me, or The Poem of the Man-God: Vols. I–V (a Work on the Life of Jesus), The Notebooks: 1943, The Notebooks: 1944, The Notebooks: 1945-1950, The Little Notebooks, The Lessons of St. Paul to the Romans, and The Book of Azariah.

In the following chapters from The Gospel as Revealed to Me, or The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. I, are the scenes, or visions that Maria Valtorta received regarding Mary's Immaculate Conception, Mary's vow of virginity, Joseph accepting the Virgin as his wife, Joseph's vow of virginity, the marriage of Joseph and Mary, and the Annunciation.

5. The Birth of the Virgin Mary
6. The Purification of Anne and the Offering of Mary
7. The Son Has Put His Wisdom on His Mother's Lips
8. Mary is Presented in the Temple
11. Mary Will Confide Her Vow to the Spouse God Will Give Her
12. Joseph Is Appointed Husband of the Virgin
13. Wedding of the Virgin and Joseph
16. The Annunciation

I believe wholeheartedly that Maria Valtorta was Jesus's spokesperson, further validated by those who've analyzed and tested the credibility of her and her literary works. Below are just a few of those studies:

(I) The results from the mathematical analysis of Maria Valtorta's Work by Professor Emilio Matricciani and Dr. Liberato De Caro, where they concluded:

In conclusion, what do these findings mean? That Maria Valtorta is such a good writer to be able to modulate the linguistic parameters in so many different ways and as a function of character of the plot and type of literary text, so as to cover almost the entire range of the Italian literature? Or that visions and dictations really occurred and she was only a mystical, very intelligent and talented “writing tool”? Of course, no answer grounded in science can be given to the latter question.

(II) The results from the astronomical and meteorological analysis of Maria Valtorta's Work by Professor Emilio Matricciani and Dr. Liberato De Caro, where they concluded:

“It seems that she has written down observations and facts that really happened at the time of Jesus’ life, as a real witness of them would have done. The question arises, unsolved from a point of view exclusively rational, how all this is possible because what Maria Valtorta writes down cannot, in any way, be traced back to her fantasy or to her astronomical and meteorological knowledge. In conclusion, if from one hand the scientific inquire has evidenced all the surprising and unexpected results reported and discussed in this paper, on the other hand our actual scientific knowledge cannot readily explain how these results are possible.”

(III) In David Webster, M.Div.'s chapter "Proof by Geography and Topography and Archaeology" of A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta’s Extraordinary Work, he relates:

“An additional line of incontrovertible evidence (which Valtorta was encouraged by Jesus to include for the benefit of “the difficult doctors” of the Church) deals with the vast amount of geographical, climatic, agricultural, historical, astronomical, and cartographical information given in her work. Authorities in these fields have verified the accuracy of what she has reported with appropriate astonishment. Valtorta accurately identifies this agricultural and climatic information that is often unique to Palestine with the appropriate calendar period which she often specifically identifies. Without any evidence of planning and with hardly any corrections, Valtorta ends up with a perfectly flowing 3½ year story line with Jesus appropriately in Jerusalem and Judea for Passover and Pentecost in all four spring seasons, and at the Tabernacles in all three fall seasons of His ministry. Valtorta shows Jesus to have traversed the land of Palestine from one end to another in at least six cycles (some 4,000 miles), ministering in some 350 named locations, including places in Palestine known only to specialized archaeologists. Not once, however, does she have Jesus (or any one of the other 500 characters) in a place inconsistent with either the story line or distance or timing necessities.”

(IV) In professional engineer Jean-François Lavère's The Valtorta Enigma, he writes:

“The work [The Poem of the Man-God] overflows with exact data from the viewpoint of history, topography, architecture, geography, ethnology, chronology, etc. Furthermore, Maria Valtorta often provides precise details known only by some scholars, and in certain cases, she even records details totally unknown at the time she recorded them, and which archeology, history, or science have later confirmed.”

 

[Castle Church]

Indeed, and Jesus talked to Maria Valtorta about that.....

AH, it finally comes clear - now she was the one that wrote material deemed near heretical and rejected by the RCC. Sorry, but endorsement of her or her "visions" voids any argument you have had or have made.

She began taking dictation from Jesus and other heavenly persons, as well as receiving scenes, or visions from the life of Jesus.

She didn't talk to Jesus, the RCC has declared that as well. She is a charlatan and false teacher.

One can't reason with the people that are in agreement with that false visionary and false prophet, I have tried before and it never works out.

 

[tango]

Again, I repeatedly said Mary stating that She's a virgin referred to the present-tense. I never said that statement is the sole proof She took a vow of perpetual chastity.



Enjoyable in what way?



Which part of the following is an assertion and why?

"No husband or wife, sterile/barren or not, should engage in sexual intercourse if they feel it would be out of selfishness and lust of the flesh, etc., but rather always with the intention to procreate, because if it's God's will for them to have a child or children, it will happen. There are plenty of examples of this in Scripture."



So, you wouldn't think it crass, or vulgar, to ask Jesus word for word, "Did Joseph and your Mother have so much sex it would make a modern day porn producer blush?"



To get in someone's business about something means to "learn or give advice about." I'm not trying to learn about their "sex life" because I already learned they didn't have one. You said you wouldn't ask Jesus about His Mother's sex life, nor anyone, because it's none of your business, and that it makes no difference to you if Joseph and Mary "had lots of sex, moderate amounts of sex, or no sex at all." However, if you really wanted to avoid getting in Joseph and Mary's business (attempting to learn about it one way or the other), and if it really made no difference to you what their sex life was like, you wouldn't have engaged in a conversation about the perpetual virginity of Mary in the first place.

I'm really struggling to take you seriously at this point. There are only so many times someone can present an absurd argument before any sense of purpose in engaging with them goes away and, to be honest, I see no point continuing to engage with someone whose argument shifts like the sands.

 

[Albion]

What dogma?

Three officially declared, allegedly infallible, dogmas of your church deal with what you have been promoting here: Mary's virginity before the Annunciation, after giving birth to Jesus, and for all the rest of her life afterwards.

Do you agree that there are false and true spokespersons of God, even in modern day?

Maria Valtorta is not a mere "spokesperson" and certainly is not seen as such by devotees like yourself.

Do you agree that God can/does elaborate on, or repeat known truths, and reveal knowledge currently unknown, to whomever whenever He wills?

God can do anything he chooses except sin.

People deny facts everyday, so that statement doesn't mean anything.

You are mistaken to think that denying a fact doesn't mean anything.

 

[Soulx3]

AH, it finally comes clear - now she was the one that wrote material deemed near heretical and rejected by the RCC. Sorry, but endorsement of her or her "visions" voids any argument you have had or have made.



She didn't talk to Jesus, the RCC has declared that as well. She is a charlatan and false teacher.

One can't reason with the people that are in agreement with that false visionary and false prophet, I have tried before and it never works out.

The Catholic Church hasn't deemed Maria Valtorta's writings heretical and rejected them. Care to try again and research properly this time?

 

[Castle Church]

The Catholic Church hasn't deemed Maria Valtorta's writings heretical and rejected them. Care to try again and research properly this time?

Fine, maybe not exactly heretical, but soundly rejected them. According to Catholic.com:

In 1960 The Poem of the Man-God, then a four-volume set, was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books. The official Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, summarized the findings of the Holy Office in an article titled “A Life of Jesus Badly Fictionalized.” When the publishers tried to get around this condemnation the next year by publishing a new ten-volume set, the work again was condemned in the Vatican paper which called it “a mountain of childishness, of fantasies, and of historical and exegetical falsehoods, diluted in a subtly sensual atmosphere.”

In correspondence with Catholic Answers, Apostolic Nuncio Archbishop Agostino Cacciavillan, pointed out that, although the Index was abolished in 1965, it still retains its moral force, and faithful Catholics should heed the reservations and cautions expressed in it.

After the dissolution of the Index, when some people thought the printing and distribution of the work was permitted, they were reminded again in L'Osservatore Romano (June 15, 1966) that "The Index retains its moral force despite its dissolution."

further:

then Cardinal Ratzinger, serving as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, reaffirmed in 1993:

The “visions” and “dictations” referred to in the work, The Poem of the Man-God, are simply the literary forms used by the author to narrate in her own way the life of Jesus. They cannot be considered supernatural in origin.

Try and get around it if you want to, but her writings are certainly to be taken as unreliable at best, they were condemned and are not approved to this day.

 

[Soulx3]

Three officially declared, allegedly infallible, dogmas of your church deal with what you have been promoting here: Mary's virginity before the Annunciation, after giving birth to Jesus, and for all the rest of her life afterwards.

You mean the dogma of the perptual virginity of Mary? Yea the evidence for that isn't what's lacking in Scripture. Is there a scriptural verse of Mary saying the words, "I've taken a vow of life-long virginity?," no, but there's more than one way to say something. In addition to the scriptural evidence I've given, I also provided evidence from Jesus through His spokesperson Maria Valtorta where she received a vision of the moment Mary made such a vow, etc. Back to the point though, Scripture is sufficient for it's intended purposes, so it isn't deficient in that way. I'm just saying Scripture lacks information about the lives of Joseph, Mary, Jesus, etc., as well as doesn't have the full quotes from Jesus's discourses and teachings, etc. Maria Valtorta's writings in part are an expansion of the four Gospels of Christ.

Maria Valtorta is not a mere "spokesperson" and certainly is not seen as such by devotees like yourself.

That's not what I asked, but rather, do you agree that there are both false and true spokespersons of God, even in modern day?

God can do anything he chooses except sin.

So, do you also agree that God does elaborate on, or repeat known truths, and reveal knowledge currently unknown, to whomever whenever He wills?

You are mistaken to think that denying a fact doesn't mean anything.

That's not what I said. I said the statement that I haven't scripturally supported my arguments doesn't mean anything, because people deny facts everyday.