[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by P3chrmd

I think we can agree that Mary was...lets say...unique, in that she was The Ark of the New Covenant! She carried, like the old ark, the word of God inside of her...and the bread from heaven...except this time it was The Lord Jesus Christ! She was also spouse of the Holy Spirit...Joseph, as the bible says, was a just man! He respected Gods relationship with Mary and knew that their job and position was to raise the Christ child!!!! Not go off and have lots more "brothers and sisters" their main concern was JESUS! So...yes sex inside marriage is OF COURSE sacred and pure...but in the case of The Mother of Yahweh...things had to have been just a slight bit different!!!

Really?? Show me any scripture to back this up. Joseph planned to marry Mary. There were 2 parts to the Jewish marriage.. the first the betrothal, the second the coming together as one flesh. From the fact that the angel Gabriel came to him ( and the words that were spoken), we know that Joseph was unaware of anything " unique " about Mary at that time... after all Gabriel came to him while he was thinking of putting Mary away. A man did not become betrothed and plan to marry a woman if he didn't plan to have a normal, and God ordained , sexual relationship with her. Matthew 19 ( these are Jesus' own words ) Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Do you presume to know more about what is God's desire than God Himself?? The Catholic church claims that somehow Joseph and Mary not becoming one flesh would be something even more special, yet God HIMSELF , through the words of Jesus, tells us that is wrong... and that the coming together of a husband and wife is Gods plan, His design, His creation, and HE is the one who does the joining. You will not find a single word in scripture to say that God has ever changed His mind about this. What you will find, is Gabriel telling Joseph to take Mary as his wife and God was pretty clear what that meant ( the man will leave his father and mother, will cleave to his wife, and the two will become one flesh).

Gabriel did not say... " Joseph , forget what you had planned, what God's design for husband and wife is, because God has changed His mind. Marry Mary, but you will not really be her husband, you will only be her and her childs guardian"

[P3chrmd]

Biologically , that just doesn't hold water.

Theres your problem...never mix science and faith...

oh jeesh...Liberal theology...never fails to amaze me

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by P3chrmd

Thats cool...go against what all early christians believed and KNEW for a fact...I mean they were there! But since we weren't its easy for us to deny...but thats why Im proud to be a part of a church, who proclaims its faith, regardless of supposed "evidence" that can be proven against it...thats what satan tries to do over and over! I don't understand protestants problem with beliving Mary was always a virgin...If Martin Luther, John Clavin and ALL THE OTHER reformers believed it....why not current day reformists???

People were in Mary and Joseph's bedroom every night to see whether or not they had sex???? People believed Jesus was Josephs son, so obviously they believed that Mary and Joseph had sex.

[P3chrmd]

Do you presume to know more about what is God's desire than God Himself?? The Catholic church claims that somehow Joseph and Mary not becoming one flesh would be something even more special, yet God HIMSELF , through the words of Jesus, tells us that is wrong... and that the coming together of a husband and wife is Gods plan, His design, His creation, and HE is the one who does the joining. You will not find a single word in scripture to say that God has ever changed His mind about this. What you will find, is Gabriel telling Joseph to take Mary as his wife and God was pretty clear what that meant ( the man will leave his father and mother, will cleave to his wife, and the two will become one flesh).

Gabriel did not say... " Joseph , forget what you had planned, what God's design for husband and wife is, because God has changed His mind. Marry Mary, but you will not really be her husband, you will only be her and her childs guardian"

again your acting as if Mary and Joseph were normal married Jewish people! FOR CHIRST SAKES...THEY HAD A CHILD WHO...was....well....CHRIST!!!!!

[P3chrmd]

People were in Mary and Joseph's bedroom every night to see whether or not they had sex???? People believed Jesus was Josephs son, so obviously they believed that Mary and Joseph had sex.

No, at least I hope not. But they were there to see if Mary had young'ns popin' out of her left and right! I mean...don' t you think people could tell if they had other kids...I mean people weren't stupid 2000 years ago you know!

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by P3chrmd

.

Actually, no Im not! You see St. John was a very awsome writer! Why did he not use HIS OWN NAME instead of "the disciple whom Jesus loved"! I MEAN IT WAS HIS GOSPEL...Don't you think that St. John would want to boast that HE was the apostle who was rewarded with the task of taking care of Christs mother! I mean after all the apostles did argue who was the greater among them!!!!

Gee, don't you think that his humility may have been one of the things that made him so beloved of the Lord??? The " disciple whom Jeus loved" is a much greater and much more awesome title than a mere name.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by P3chrmd

No, at least I hope not. But they were there to see if Mary had young'ns popin' out of her left and right! I mean...don' t you think people could tell if they had other kids...I mean people weren't stupid 2000 years ago you know!

Of course, which is why they often spoke of Jesus brothers and sisters. They did exactly as you say they would have done.

[P3chrmd]

People believed Jesus was Josephs son, so obviously they believed that Mary and Joseph had sex.

well not really...

In scripture the villagers disrespect Jesus by saying "Is he not the son of Mary" In those times...children (especially male children) were alway called sons of their fathers...by the villagers calling Jesus his mothers son...they were disrespecting him...for they knew that he was not Josephs son. They had an idea that Mary was pregnant before her marriage to Joseph...so therefore they were calling Jesus a bastard child!

[P3chrmd]

Here is something that hasn't been pointed out before...


in Luke 1:34. When the angel Gabriel told Mary that she was about to have a son she said, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”. This is a very weird statement. I was married two years ago. If an angel told me that I was going to have a son it would not be a big shock. Babies usually come after you get married. But Mary said, “How can this be”. The only way to make sense of this is if Mary had a vow of virginity and this is what Catholic Tradition attests to. Mary was betrothed to Joseph, which was more than an engagement. Joseph even was going to get a divorce from Mary when he found that she was with child.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by P3chrmd

again your acting as if Mary and Joseph were normal married Jewish people! FOR CHIRST SAKES...THEY HAD A CHILD WHO...was....well....CHRIST!!!!!

I recommend you edit the curse you just made with Christs name in it....

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by P3chrmd

well not really...

In scripture the villagers disrespect Jesus by saying "Is he not the son of Mary" In those times...children (especially male children) were alway called sons of their fathers...by the villagers calling Jesus his mothers son...they were disrespecting him...for they knew that he was not Josephs son. They had an idea that Mary was pregnant before her marriage to Joseph...so therefore they were calling Jesus a bastard child!

His father was apparently dead by this time, as we never see or hear of him . Pretty sensible to call Jesus Marys son as his "father" was dead. Once again you make a claim with no foundation....

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by P3chrmd

Here is something that hasn't been pointed out before...


in Luke 1:34. When the angel Gabriel told Mary that she was about to have a son she said, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”. This is a very weird statement. I was married two years ago. If an angel told me that I was going to have a son it would not be a big shock. Babies usually come after you get married. But Mary said, “How can this be”. The only way to make sense of this is if Mary had a vow of virginity and this is what Catholic Tradition attests to. Mary was betrothed to Joseph, which was more than an engagement. Joseph even was going to get a divorce from Mary when he found that she was with child.

No, wrong again. The man and woman were considered husband and wife, but they did NOT come together physically during the betrothal. It states that Mary was BETROTHED. Mary knew she had not fornicated, so her statement makes perfect sense. And yes, a man could divorce the woman he was betrothed to if it was found she had fornicated as Joseph must have assumed is what happened, since he considered divorcing her.

[P3chrmd]

Of course, which is why they often spoke of Jesus brothers and sisters. They did exactly as you say they would have done

again, they were refering to his close kinsmen! I mean we have to stop AMERICANIZING Jesus...HERE in our culture we do call our brothers and sisters...just that...brothers and sisters...and our cousins...cousins. BUT in the culture that Christ was born into there was NO TERM AT ALL for cousin...so all close relatives were called brothers and sisters

I used to work with a lady from India...and one day she brought someone to work...and she introduced him to me...and she said that he was her brother! And I ask her "Oh I didn't realize that you had a brother!?!" And she corrected herself...she said "I apologize...he is my cousin...in our country and culture we refer to each other as brother and sister!"

So you see..when people from our culture read the scriptures...it is often assumed...oh yes...well it says Jesus has brothers and sisters...so he must! But then they hear that the catholic church teaches other wise...and they say well how can they argue what it says in scriptures...simple...cause IT NEVER SAYS THAT WERE CHILDREN OF MARY! Always brethern of Jesus...NO WHERE NO WHERE NEVER EVER does it says the sons and daughters of Mary! Because...they weren't...they were his close relatives...but because there was no term of the time for cousin or nephew or niece...they were called his brothers and sisters! THATS THE WAY THE CULTURE WAS...we have to stop Americanizing the scriptures.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by P3chrmd

Theres your problem...never mix science and faith...

oh jeesh...Liberal theology...never fails to amaze me

Nothing liberal in my theology... just a lack of basic biology knowledge in your thinking and understanding.

[P3chrmd]

Gee, don't you think that his humility may have been one of the things that made him so beloved of the Lord??? The " disciple whom Jeus loved" is a much greater and much more awesome title than a mere name.

EXACTLY! And thats why he is so awsome! He wanted us to know by using the term "disciple whom Jesus loved" that we were invited to put ourselves IN HIS PLACE...because...we ARE ALL disciples whom Jesus loves! and we should always take Mary into our homes from the moment we accept Christ into our lives!