Ever Virgin

[MoreCoffee]

Oh thats right you dont think she had other children bur at the very least she committed bigamy. Not biblical

There can be no bigamy in ancient Israel when God commands marriage between saint Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[psalms 91]

There can be no bigamy in ancient Israel when God commands marriage between saint Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

He would not break His own Law now would He?

 

[MoreCoffee]

He would not break His own Law now would He?

God allowed polygamy. Your post is confusing God's laws with USA laws.

 

[PezGirl73]

It is not sex that taints anybody but unfaithfulness does taint be it sexual unfaithfulness or spiritual unfaithfulness. Blessed Mary is and ever shall be the spouse of God who bore his Son who was born of the Blessed Virgin for the salvation of the world.

There can be no adultery where there is no intercourse.

So it was perfectly okay to be married to God (that's a new one) AND Joseph?

And can you give me a good reason why God decided to have Joseph marry her but then deny both of them one of the main blessings of marriage? Did he tell Joseph that it was going to be like that? Or was it a bait and switch kind of thing?

 

[MoreCoffee]

So it was perfectly okay to be married to God (that's a new one) AND Joseph?

And can you give me a good reason why God decided to have Joseph marry her but then deny both of them one of the main blessings of marriage? Did he tell Joseph that it was going to be like that? Or was it a bait and switch kind of thing?

For her safety and to preserve her reputation among a people who gossiped and were inclined to violence. John chapter eight illustrates how easily violence crept into the way the Judeans interacted with the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Josiah]

I find the RCC/LDS theory that God and Mary were married to be ..... baseless, weird (and maybe a little offensive). But to the point, this RCC/LDS theory is entirely unrelated to any documentation proving Mary as a PERPETUAL virgin. Even if Mary were a polygamist, that would have nothing to do with proving her to be a PERPETUAL virgin.


Now, Coffee, please note well, I mean absolutely NO disrespect to Our Lady - whom I adore and esteem enormously. But then I'm not the one insisting DOGMA about Her perpetual sex life (or the lack thereof) - I'm not saying ANYTHING more about that than I am your sex life or my sisters or mother's sex life. And I'm NOT implying that She was a polygamist and that Joseph and God were polygamists, too. And I'm NOT saying anyone is being heretical or unbiblical. I mean Her no disrespect - and therefore saying nothing about Her that God in Scripture has not first clearly said. I KNOW - to the core of my being - that Catholics mean no disrespect whatsoever (quite the contrary) BUT I also agree with Catholics that we must not proclaim things as de fide Dogma that cannot be shown to be true, that truth matters, that dogma must be held up to examination, and (as my Catholic teachers stress) gossip is a sin, no matter how well intended or how often repeated. When we respect one, we tell the truth about them and we do not tell things we can't document as true. And I agree with Catholics that the bolder the claim, the higher the "bar" of substantiation mandated in response.... so de fide dogma (being the highest and boldest level of claim and teaching) thus requires the highest and boldest of support. I confess, this whole discussion always makes me uncomfortable..... no one even speaks this way about their old married aunt, why about the Mother of God, Our Lady? But again, no one means any disrespect..... it's just CATHOLICS have put this issue of Her sex life on the table and delcared this issue to be a matter of highest, greatest importance and certainty: thus the accompanying very, very high bar of substantiation is all theirs. But as we see from you, there is essentially nothing. I'd point out there's essentially nothing on the other side of the debate either, but that does you no good, that doesn't help you a bit.... something is NOT de fide Dogma simply because it cannot be proven to be false - it simply remains unsubstantiated opinion.




- Josiah





.

 

[PezGirl73]

For her safety and to preserve her reputation among a people who gossiped and were inclined to violence. John chapter eight illustrates how easily violence crept into the way the Judeans interacted with the Lord Jesus Christ.

Her reputation was already bad (Joseph was gonna leave her) when she was pregnant before she was married, so I don't buy that at all.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Her reputation was already bad (Joseph was gonna leave her) when she was pregnant before she was married, so I don't buy that at all.

Yes, but an angel from God appeared to him in a dream and instructed him to marry her. Aside from saint Joseph (and the heavenly hosts) no one else knew the cause of her pregnancy.

 

[PezGirl73]

Yes, but an angel from God appeared to him in a dream and instructed him to marry her. Aside from saint Joseph (and the heavenly hosts) no one else knew the cause of her pregnancy.

With my first marriage, I conceived on our honeymoon, and then my son decided to come a good two and half months early.

I STILL have people in my family who swear up and down I was pregnant before I got married.

See my point?

There's no scriptural backing to God wanting to protect Mary's reputation so therefore she had to marry someone. I'd be willing to bet there's a good number of Atheist Apologists out there who point to Mary being married to Joseph at all negates the virgin birth.

Do you have any scriptural proof of why God would tell Joseph to marry her but then decide Joseph doesn't get to have sex as part of the bargain?

 

[Josiah]

I think anyone can theorize until Jesus returns...... it substantiates NOTHING. I think that anyone can ask questions all day and night..... it substantiates NOTHING.

The De Fide DOGMA of the RC Denomination is that Mary remained a virgin through the microsecond of her death (or undeath - depending on what Catholic teacher the Catholic is docilicly submitting to). The RCC is the one with the DOGMA. The proverbial "ball" of substantiation to the level claimed is entirely, wholly, singularly in the camp of the RC Denomination. It is NOT - repeat NOT - the responsibility of any non-Catholic to prove the teaching wrong, it is the mandate of the RC Denomination to document it CORRECT - to the level it claims: the highest level of certainty, importance and necessity.

This attempt to just layer baseless claims on top of baseless claims substantiates NOTHING. This attempt to ask endless questions which no one can definitively answer substantiates NOTHING. Does truth matter to the RCC? Does it exempt Mary - the Blessed Lady, the Mother of God - from the issue of Truth? Does it not matter what is stated - DOGMATICALLY - about Her in Catholicism? Or can you substantiate this DE FIDE DOGMA as true? Not just repeat the claim over and over and over and over until everyone is worn out and exits the discussion...... not just endless layers of baseless claims.... not just endless questions which cannot be answered definitively...... It's the RCC that teaches this - as de fide dogma. The "ball" is wholly in its court.

And Coffee, NO Protestant denomination has a Dogma of "Mary Had Sex." NONE. So, it is NOT the responsibility of ANY Protestant to prove to the level claimed that Mary had sex. Your attempt to reverse the table - while I admit many take the "bait" - is silly and an obvious attempt to evade the whole issue. It is NOT true that a claim is De Fide Dogma if it cannot be proven to be false....... I know you desire to imply that but thats just not true, my friend. Can you PROVE there is no life on any moon of Jupiter? Does that make it a FACT of highest certainty and importance that there IS life on at least one moon of Jupiter? Of course you realize this..... thus all your attempts to imply Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin because arguments to the contrary are unconvincing is.... well...... we all know.



I find this whole discussion...... unfortunate. Can't we praise and honor and esteem the Mother of Jesus for what God tells us in Scripture? Do we have to make up stuff out of thin air instead? I think it is most unfortunate that much of Protestantism has largely ignored Our Lady, but I place the "blame" for the entirely, wholly, completely on the RC Denomination for displacing the biblical Mary with a whole bunch of opinions that it declares to be de fide dogma but won't show are true - because it cannot. Sad.



Pax Soli Christi



- Josiah

 

[psalms 91]

God allowed polygamy. Your post is confusing God's laws with USA laws.

So God had many wives, by the way poligamy in the bible was for the man, not the woman

 

[Josiah]

Why I find this whole discussion..... unfortunate.


1. I think it detours us, it sidetracks us, it hinders our discussion of the biblical Mary - the Mary as God in His divine wisdom in His Scripture chose to convey to us. There is much - very, very much - in this Mary that is praiseworthy, that IMO, makes Her chief among the saints, one to be esteemed and praised. And of course, She is the mother of Jesus (and since Jesus is God, in THAT singular sense, She is the Mother of God). But this doesn't happen....... she often gets ignored..... because the RC Denomination has displaced all that with this "Mary" it has created out of thin air - and then it itself declared this invention of itself to be divisive DE FIDE DOGMA - a matter of highest importance, highest certainty, highest necessity. Protestants thus want the documentation for this remarkable claim...... Catholics prove (over and over!) they have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to show it is as it claims..... and we seem stuck. The biblical Mary left in the proverbial dust.


2. I think THIS particular RCC Marian dogma often seems..... distasteful. Inappropriate even. I'm no prude...... the parents who raised me were no prudes..... but I still vividly recall being a wee Catholic lad and figuring this out: This is a DOGMA that centers in Mary's personal, marital sex life after Jesus was born. Intimate, physical marital issues are PRIVATE. AND I realized the Catholic Church has nothing...... nothing....... NOTHING to support this as true (much less as de fide dogma). AND nothing..... nothing..... NOTHING...... to show why this even matters (much less is a matter of highest importance and necessity possible). I was but a wee lad when that all dawned on me. I'm SURE it's dawned on all Catholics 9 and over. Now, here's why it bothered this wee, innocent Catholic lad: Our Catholic teachers STRESSED that gossip is a sin - a terrible sin. And they defined "gossip" as the spreading of something we don't know is true - especially something that is potentially harmful or embarrassing or just plain PRIVATE and personal. Well.... connect the dots. This wee Catholic boy did. But unlike some former Catholics, I don't question the sincerity here.... or the piety..... I KNOW Catholics mean no disrespect or dishonor - I'm so convinced of that that none have been able to dissuade me from that conviction. But it doesn't change that they have this very divisive and at times troubling Dogma that IMO undermines the esteem of Our Lady, at times even that of Jesus (although, again, such is not the desire of any Catholic).



Sorry.


My half cent.


- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

With my first marriage, I conceived on our honeymoon, and then my son decided to come a good two and half months early.

I STILL have people in my family who swear up and down I was pregnant before I got married.

See my point?

There's no scriptural backing to God wanting to protect Mary's reputation so therefore she had to marry someone. I'd be willing to bet there's a good number of Atheist Apologists out there who point to Mary being married to Joseph at all negates the virgin birth.

Do you have any scriptural proof of why God would tell Joseph to marry her but then decide Joseph doesn't get to have sex as part of the bargain?

I see an anecdote about your experience but nothing in it is parallel to the scriptural account of the Blessed Virgin Mary's experience leading to the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Luke 1:26-38 [26] Then, in the sixth month, the Angel Gabriel was sent by God, to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, [27] to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the name of the virgin was Mary. [28] And upon entering, the Angel said to her: "Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women." [29] And when she had heard this, she was disturbed by his words, and she considered what kind of greeting this might be. [30] And the Angel said to her: "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found grace with God. [31] Behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and you shall bear a son, and you shall call his name: JESUS. [32] He will be great, and he will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father. And he will reign in the house of Jacob for eternity. [33] And his kingdom shall have no end." [34] Then Mary said to the Angel, "How shall this be done, since I do not know man?" [35] And in response, the Angel said to her: "The Holy Spirit will pass over you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. And because of this also, the Holy One who will be born of you shall be called the Son of God. [36] And behold, your cousin Elizabeth has herself also conceived a son, in her old age. And this is the sixth month for her who is called barren. [37] For no word will be impossible with God." [38] Then Mary said: "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word." And the Angel departed from her.​

Surely nothing is impossible with God.

 

[PezGirl73]

I see an anecdote about your experience but nothing in it is parallel to the scriptural account of the Blessed Virgin Mary's experience leading to the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Luke 1:26-38 [26] Then, in the sixth month, the Angel Gabriel was sent by God, to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, [27] to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the name of the virgin was Mary. [28] And upon entering, the Angel said to her: "Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women." [29] And when she had heard this, she was disturbed by his words, and she considered what kind of greeting this might be. [30] And the Angel said to her: "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found grace with God. [31] Behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and you shall bear a son, and you shall call his name: JESUS. [32] He will be great, and he will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father. And he will reign in the house of Jacob for eternity. [33] And his kingdom shall have no end." [34] Then Mary said to the Angel, "How shall this be done, since I do not know man?" [35] And in response, the Angel said to her: "The Holy Spirit will pass over you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. And because of this also, the Holy One who will be born of you shall be called the Son of God. [36] And behold, your cousin Elizabeth has herself also conceived a son, in her old age. And this is the sixth month for her who is called barren. [37] For no word will be impossible with God." [38] Then Mary said: "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word." And the Angel departed from her.​

Surely nothing is impossible with God.

It has relevancy to your assertion that God would have her get married to protect her reputation. Her reputation was already sullied at that point in time. People talk.

You're right, nothing is impossible with God. What does that have to do with God requiring Joseph to marry a woman who he couldn't have sex with?

 

[MoreCoffee]

It has relevancy to your assertion that God would have her get married to protect her reputation. Her reputation was already sullied at that point in time. People talk.

You're right, nothing is impossible with God. What does that have to do with God requiring Joseph to marry a woman who he couldn't have sex with?

The Blessed Virgin Mary lived an exemplary life of chastity, grace, and goodness - as much as was possible for a creature - so I shall refrain from any accusations against her of whom God said "all generations shall call [her] blessed".

 

[PezGirl73]

The Blessed Virgin Mary lived an exemplary life of chastity, grace, and goodness - as much as was possible for a creature - so I shall refrain from any accusations against her of whom God said "all generations shall call [her] blessed".

That's a rather obtuse argument. Note that I didn't say SHE was sullied. I said her reputation was. You'd be naive to believe that people weren't counting on their fingers just like people in my family did. And in her case, the counting would definitely lead to speculation that she was pregnant before she got married because SHE WAS.

Again, I ask you: what scriptural proof do you have that God would tell Joseph to marry this woman but then decide that Joseph couldn't enjoy marital benefits with her?

 

[Josiah]

Surely nothing is impossible with God.

As I noted, you must resort to such an argument that we all know is false and desperate. Friend, we all know that something is NOT de fide Dogma because it is not adequately proven to you that it is false. Again: Prove there is no life on any moon of Jupiter. Can't? Does that prove that ERGO, it is a dogmatic fact of highest certainly, importance and necessity that there IS life on a moon of Jupiter? Of course not, you know what a baseless, silly, desperate argument and tactic this is, friend.

Sure, nothing is impossible for God. But that doesn't make EVERYTHING ergo true. By this argument, you'd be mandated to support as a matter of highest importance, necessity and certainty that Joseph Smith found those plates near his house.... cuz nothing is impossible for God..... that there are little purple people living on Mars because nothing is impossible for God. Come on, my good and esteemed friend. See how absurd this whole thing gets? HOW can this possibly bring honor to Mary?

See posts # 130 and 132



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

That's a rather obtuse argument. Note that I didn't say SHE was sullied. I said her reputation was. You'd be naive to believe that people weren't counting on their fingers just like people in my family did. And in her case, the counting would definitely lead to speculation that she was pregnant before she got married because SHE WAS.

Again, I ask you: what scriptural proof do you have that God would tell Joseph to marry this woman but then decide that Joseph couldn't enjoy marital benefits with her?

The holy scriptures tell us that saint Joseph received a dream instructing him to marry Blessed Mary so that ought not to be in dispute (see Matthew 1:20). The holy scriptures never call the Blessed Virgin Mary the mother of any person save the Lord Jesus Christ. It is speculation on your part to claim any sexual intercourse between saint Joseph and Blessed Mary.

 

[Rens]

Who cares? Maybe they never had sex and Joseph was thankful because he hated it. Who cares? I don't want to know and am not gonna ask them in heaven.

 

[psalms 91]

Why I find this whole discussion..... unfortunate.


1. I think it detours us, it sidetracks us, it hinders our discussion of the biblical Mary - the Mary as God in His divine wisdom in His Scripture chose to convey to us. There is much - very, very much - in this Mary that is praiseworthy, that IMO, makes Her chief among the saints, one to be esteemed and praised. And of course, She is the mother of Jesus (and since Jesus is God, in THAT singular sense, She is the Mother of God). But this doesn't happen....... she often gets ignored..... because the RC Denomination has displaced all that with this "Mary" it has created out of thin air - and then it itself declared this invention of itself to be divisive DE FIDE DOGMA - a matter of highest importance, highest certainty, highest necessity. Protestants thus want the documentation for this remarkable claim...... Catholics prove (over and over!) they have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to show it is as it claims..... and we seem stuck. The biblical Mary left in the proverbial dust.


2. I think THIS particular RCC Marian dogma often seems..... distasteful. Inappropriate even. I'm no prude...... the parents who raised me were no prudes..... but I still vividly recall being a wee Catholic lad and figuring this out: This is a DOGMA that centers in Mary's personal, marital sex life after Jesus was born. Intimate, physical marital issues are PRIVATE. AND I realized the Catholic Church has nothing...... nothing....... NOTHING to support this as true (much less as de fide dogma). AND nothing..... nothing..... NOTHING...... to show why this even matters (much less is a matter of highest importance and necessity possible). I was but a wee lad when that all dawned on me. I'm SURE it's dawned on all Catholics 9 and over. Now, here's why it bothered this wee, innocent Catholic lad: Our Catholic teachers STRESSED that gossip is a sin - a terrible sin. And they defined "gossip" as the spreading of something we don't know is true - especially something that is potentially harmful or embarrassing or just plain PRIVATE and personal. Well.... connect the dots. This wee Catholic boy did. But unlike some former Catholics, I don't question the sincerity here.... or the piety..... I KNOW Catholics mean no disrespect or dishonor - I'm so convinced of that that none have been able to dissuade me from that conviction. But it doesn't change that they have this very divisive and at times troubling Dogma that IMO undermines the esteem of Our Lady, at times even that of Jesus (although, again, such is not the desire of any Catholic).



Sorry.


My half cent.


- Josiah

Right on