Zone1 Mary's sinlessness

[hadit]

I think you are the one who should be careful in his thoughts.

I am. I am not the one who says it's "trashing" Mary to say she and Joseph could have had a God-blessed, fulfilling sex life that produced multiple children.

 

[Meriweather]

I am. I am not the one who says it's "trashing" Mary to say she and Joseph could have had a God-blessed, fulfilling sex life that produced multiple children.

Who are these children?

 

[hadit]

Consider the troubled times in which Mary and Joseph lived. There was a group, even those who were married, made a sacrifice, a vow of celibacy. Can we prove Mary and Joseph were a part of this group? No. But listen to what Mary said. "How can this be since I do not know man?" It seems she was aware of her vow and it follows a vow also made by Joseph. One does not break one's vow to God.

Of course, it's possible they made such a vow. It's also possible that she and Joseph had a God-blessed, fulfilling sex life that produced multiple children, something that doesn't take anything away from her dedication to the Lord and her obedience to His call.

Another consideration: It was very unusual for a woman and a man to make such a vow. Imagine the talk/gossip...she remained a virgin...even when married..." That's newsworthy.

It's not trashing anyone to say a married couple engaged it sex. It's expected. What would be trashing someone is knowing s/he made a vow of celibacy to begin declaring--or even whispering--that it only makes sense they broke their vows to God.

There is another poster who apparently thinks it is trashing her to say she and her lawful husband had sex after Jesus was born. The Bible says he didn't start their sex life until after that.

The bottom line is that the Catholic Church venerates Mary to the point that some, if not many, actually consider her divine. That's dangerous.

 

[Meriweather]

Of course, it's possible they made such a vow. It's also possible that she and Joseph had a God-blessed, fulfilling sex life that produced multiple children, something that doesn't take anything away from her dedication to the Lord and her obedience to His call.

First, name the multiple children Mary and Joseph produced. Second, early Christians believed and passed on the tradition that Mary remained a virgin. Third, history can show there was indeed a group of Jews who, though married, made vows of celibacy. Fifteen hundred years later another group--a group of Protestants--dismissed these traditions and insisted Mary and Joseph had sex and produced children. Then they decided Mary was sinful.

Possible. You note both are possible, and you choose not to believe what early Christians said, but what Christians 1500 years later said. Worse, you will not give the testimony of early Christians the same weight as you give the words of those who spoke fifteen hundred years after the fact. Mary said, "I do not know man." She speaks of a vow you simply dismiss, because of your certainty that Mary MUST have broken her vow, because after all she is a sinner, or at the very least a silly teenager? And--knowing you and your wife could never keep such a vow--that is all the proof you need that nor could Mary and Joseph keep their vow of celibacy?

 

[Meriweather]

The bottom line is that the Catholic Church venerates Mary to the point that some, if not many, actually consider her divine. That's dangerous.

What a lame excuse. Some believe the earth is flat, that there was no moon landing, breaking a mirror means seven years of bad luck. All of those who believe any of the above need to further their studies and do even the smallest amount of research. Such beliefs are not dangerous. They are merely ignorant.

 

[hadit]

First, name the multiple children Mary and Joseph produced. Second, early Christians believed and passed on the tradition that Mary remained a virgin. Third, history can show there was indeed a group of Jews who, though married, made vows of celibacy. Fifteen hundred years later another group--a group of Protestants--dismissed these traditions and insisted Mary and Joseph had sex and produced children. Then they decided Mary was sinful.

We've been over that, and I've not seen any effort to deal with the issues I've raised about it beyond, "God did a miracle only for her, and Jesus suffered because God didn't want to do it for all mankind".

Possible. You note both are possible, and you choose not to believe what early Christians said, but what Christians 1500 years later said. Worse, you will not give the testimony of early Christians the same weight as you give the words of those who spoke fifteen hundred years after the fact. Mary said, "I do not know man."

Of course, at that time she did not know a man because she was not yet married to Joseph. In fact, they were only betrothed when they traveled to Bethlehem and didn't consummate their marriage until after Jesus was born.

She speaks of a vow you simply dismiss, because of your certainty that Mary MUST have broken her vow, because after all she is a sinner, or at the very least a silly teenager? And--knowing you and your wife could never keep such a vow--that is all the proof you need that nor could Mary and Joseph keep their vow of celibacy?

You're assuming a vow of celibacy, something that is not Scripturally based. That's fine, it doesn't make any difference whether Mary and Joseph had sex or not, and I have not stated categorically that they did. I believe they did based on the Bible, but I wasn't there. You, OTOH, are absolutely certain that she was not only a perpetual virgin, but one of only two human beings that lived a totally sin-free life, something also not Scripturally based.

 

[hadit]

What a lame excuse. Some believe the earth is flat, that there was no moon landing, breaking a mirror means seven years of bad luck. All of those who believe any of the above need to further their studies and do even the smallest amount of research. Such beliefs are not dangerous. They are merely ignorant.

Theology, however, is dangerous. Elevating a human to divine status is not something God wants done.

 

[Meriweather]

We've been over that, and I've not seen any effort to deal with the issues I've raised about it beyond, "God did a miracle only for her, and Jesus suffered because God didn't want to do it for all mankind".

I doubt it can be summed up with a "God didn't want". It seems more likely that God had a different plan.

Of course, at that time she did not know a man because she was not yet married to Joseph. In fact, they were only betrothed when they traveled to Bethlehem and didn't consummate their marriage until after Jesus was born.

"I do not know man." Think about it. Otherwise it is reasonable for her to think she and Joseph would conceive a child.

You're assuming a vow of celibacy, something that is not Scripturally based. That's fine, it doesn't make any difference whether Mary and Joseph had sex or not, and I have not stated categorically that they did. I believe they did based on the Bible, but I wasn't there. You, OTOH, are absolutely certain that she was not only a perpetual virgin, but one of only two human beings that lived a totally sin-free life, something also not Scripturally based.

As I explained above, it is based on scripture. Her perpetual virginity is early Church/Christian tradition as well.

Again, those who want to rethink this fifteen hundred years (and more) later are welcome to their other possibilities. In these realm of possibilities, it's only reasonable they should include the original possibility.

 

[Meriweather]

Theology, however, is dangerous. Elevating a human to divine status is not something God wants done.

When it comes to ignorance, not even theology is immune. Is this the reason Protestants refuse to consider the possibility noted both in scripture and the early Church: They hold great fear that some would consider Mary divine? Show me a Catholic (not just "some Catholic") who believes Mary is divine, and I'll show you ignorance.

 

[ding]

I am. I am not the one who says it's "trashing" Mary to say she and Joseph could have had a God-blessed, fulfilling sex life that produced multiple children.

Maybe ask yourself why Jesus had John be responsible for Mary if Jesus had a brother. Maybe ask yourself what sin you think Mary committed.

 

[hadit]

Maybe ask yourself why Jesus had John be responsible for Mary if Jesus had a brother. Maybe ask yourself what sin you think Mary committed.

1. John was present at the cross while Jesus' brothers were not. John was a trusted disciple whom Jesus loved, so He would be confident Mary would be cared for.
2. I don't have to know what sin Mary committed to know that sinless perfection through human effort is out of reach for all who are not Jesus Christ.

 

[hadit]

When it comes to ignorance, not even theology is immune. Is this the reason Protestants refuse to consider the possibility noted both in scripture and the early Church: They hold great fear that some would consider Mary divine? Show me a Catholic (not just "some Catholic") who believes Mary is divine, and I'll show you ignorance.

Define "divine". I would say anyone who has the ability to hear and understand untold millions of people simultaneously clamoring for her attention, asking her to pray for them and with them would have to be superhuman, if not divine.

 

[ding]

1. John was present at the cross while Jesus' brothers were not. John was a trusted disciple whom Jesus loved, so He would be confident Mary would be cared for.
2. I don't have to know what sin Mary committed to know that sinless perfection through human effort is out of reach for all who are not Jesus Christ.

OMG, that's ridiculous. Jesus had no brothers that's why John was tasked with taking care of Mary. Mary was without sin but according to you she sinned.

 

[Meriweather]

Define "divine". I would say anyone who has the ability to hear and understand untold millions of people simultaneously clamoring for her attention, asking her to pray for them and with them would have to be superhuman, if not divine.

Do you understand all prayer is through the Holy Spirit?

 

[BreezeWood]

No. But listen to what Mary said. "How can this be since I do not know man?" It seems she was aware of her vow and it follows a vow also made by Joseph. One does not break one's vow to God.

never said by mary or implied by joseph, true their belief was in the heavens - not judaism or fear of the liar moses or the crucifiers who eventually murdered their child and lied in their christian bible.

as today the religious intolerabilty, abrahamic religions for the natural world is a source for their duplicity and is contrary to the true heavenly example made in the 1st century.

 

[hadit]

OMG, that's ridiculous. Jesus had no brothers that's why John was tasked with taking care of Mary. Mary was without sin but according to you she sinned.

He had brothers. You have to reinterpret Scripture to mean something other than brothers to hold onto that. And yes, Mary sinned, because if she didn't, there was another way for God to reconcile with man and Jesus didn't have to suffer the cross.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The reality frightens you so badly you have to think rape?

I am a normal, rational adult. When I hear a woman became pregnant without any knowledge or memory of having had sex, I make the rational assumption that she is likely lying her ass off.

Putting that idea aside, the next most rational and normal assumption would be that she was raped while unconscious.

Not that a magical god raped her.

 

[Donald H]

I am a normal, rational adult. When I hear a woman became pregnant without any knowledge or memory of having had sex, I make the rational assumption that she is likely lying her ass off.

Putting that idea aside, the next most rational and normal assumption would be that she was raped while unconscious.

Not that a magical god raped her.

That 'is' rational, but it's one of the last contradictions of plausibility remaining in the bibles that can't be amended. That would tear down the entire house of cards.

John might have been portrayed as a woman (or gay) to add to the illusion that Mary and him/her weren't getting it on together? There's little doubt that Leonardo had suspicions.

 

[Meriweather]

He had brothers.

Name them. The ones usually named can be shown via scripture and other early Christian writings to be the sons of Mary (who was also at the foot of the cross) and Clopas. Further, this Mary was said to have been a close relative of Mary, the mother of Jesus; Clopas was said to have been a close relative of Joseph.

 

[Donald H]

Name them. The ones usually named can be shown via scripture and other early Christian writings to be the sons of Mary (who was also at the foot of the cross) and Clopas. Further, this Mary was said to have been a close relative of Mary, the mother of Jesus; Clopas was said to have been a close relative of Joseph.

Did Leonardo have any basis to go on for his portrayals of all the characters in the Last Supper?

Or was his portrayals based on bible rhetoric alone?

Why the distinctly feminine protrayal of John?