/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

How could she have conceived her non-divine sons if she was still a virgin??

>>751533

She had no other children.

When Scripture refers to Christ as "first-born", this was a Jewish idiom referring to…well, the first-born. In modern idiom this suggests that there was other children. Likewise, when some of the Apostles are referred to as "brothers of Jesus", this is familial ties, not literal blood-brother.

There are no James, son of Joseph, nor are there any Johns, son of Joseph mentioned in Scripture.

If Mary had non-divine sons, show me them. Where is the blood lineage of God?

The Portuguese bishop is lost, but the Pope only wrong is if you subscribe to Original Sin (and of course, Catholics pushed themselves into a corner with it. Good job hitching religion to what originally stemmed from philosophical views. You guys always do this for some reason :). St Chrysostom and others had already made room for faults in Mary, so it isn't unknown to patristic teaching (it just depends on if they were Augustinian or not). In one of his homilies, he used the instance when St. Mary and others sent word to Jesus when he was with a crowd ("Your mother is waiting for you", they implored), and Jesus said those who do the will of God are his mother, brother, and sisters. Chrysostom explained this, not by denigrating Mary, but just that Jesus was pointing out her vanity here and that it wasn't right to intrude while he was doing important things with the crowd. She wanted to draw attention to herself by not waiting. It's a fairly harmless thing, but a sign that she was just human herself.

It had to be from my country God winnie the pooh damn it.

As for the statement of the Pope I believe it was unintentional.

He is just using the Holy Family as an example to normal families. Parents should grow in holiness.

>>751554

You're right on that one if that was true but it isn't because Mary was ever virgin.

Brothers in Aramaich mean also relatives or even friends. Even we use the word bro to our friends.

For example:

Matthew 28:10

Then Jesus said to them: Fear not. Go, tell my brethren that they go into Galilee. There they shall see me.

And then we see he refers to the apostles

Matthew 28:16

And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

Also when the angel says Mary would conceive a child she was very much surprise. If she was planning on having relations with Joseph she wouldn't be that surprised if God promised her a son because that's what normally happens when people are married.

Never before in the history of mankind has there been a greater self-own than the Papal Infallibility doctrine. The self-own to rule all self-owns.

>>751556

How do you know she was "ever virgin"?

>Mary was not born a saint, but worked to “become” one.

This is in line with Catholic teaching. A saint is someone in heaven, Mary was indeed working towards heaven and therefore becoming a saint like every other Christian is.

>LifeSiteNews

Here is your problem. These guys are known to intentionally mistranslate what clerics say to make it seem more outrageous.

>>751557

Google papal infallibility you illiterate winnie the pooh.

I assume you are one, otherwise you are outright lying to the brethren.

>>751558

Because of what I said before.

Mary didn't expect having kids even though she would be married.

She could have answered yeah oh angel that makes sense that I shall conceive a child. I'm gonna marry Joseph ill have kids some day.

But she was surprised she was going to conceive. Therefore she intended to remain a virgin.

Another argument is that Jesus tell Mary to behold her new son John and John to regard Mary as his mother.

If she had more children Jesus wouldn't have to entrust her to John since she would lose a son of the cross but would have more to look after her.

And finally from the very beggning of the church the fathers were unanimous about the virginity of the Lady.

If she wasn't a virgin why didn't they just said so?

[heresies intensify]

>>751587

>She did not intend to remain a virgin in marriage, because the point of marriage is procreation.

Her intention to procreate prior to Christ has nothing to do with Her Immaculate Conception. Intention to procreate is very different from suffering the from the effects of Lust, as Tobias points out.

No doubt, birthing the Christ committed Her to life-long celibacy.

>How could they be husband and wife otherwise?

Look up what a Josephine Marriage is. It's a good to mortify the Flesh, -mortification- is defined as giving up a licit Good to pursue Heavenly goods (prayer, good works, etc).

>>751554

Jesus Christ is True Man in addition to True God, this is a definition of the hypostatic union.

Had Mary given birth to any more children, they would be the blood lineage of God, Nestor.

In any case, She never did.

>>751588

Paul says Christ will reign until all his enemies are etc etc.

Does this mean christ will cease to be king then?

Its just that until is the better word in English for the Greek word.

That passage is neither against or for

>>751593

You're not making sense

What is a better english word?

What's the relevance of the millennial reign?

>>751591

>Had Mary given birth to any more children, they would be the blood lineage of God

Imagine being this pig ignorant of biology and theology

>>751590

>Her intention to procreate prior to Christ has nothing to do with Her Immaculate Conception

The "immaculate conception" in no way, shape or form concerns Jesus Christ. It is an idea that is solely about Mary, it allegedly occurred decades before Christ's birth.

>No doubt, birthing the Christ committed Her to life-long celibacy

Nonsensical leap in logic based on nothing but the unnatural impulse of tradition. But this isn't what was said before, this is a completely different position from the one annunciated above. She couldn't have intended to procreate at the start but change her mind due to Christ AND have never intended it at all.

>Look up what a Josephine Marriage is

If it's a marriage which is intent on not procreating, then it's a wicked perversion and a sin.

>>751601

Until in the English translation doesn't convey the true meaning let us say of the original language. "Until" is used in different contexts and has different meanings. In the case of Our Lady there can't be made an argument against her virginity or otherwise.

As St. Jerome says:

In like manner, ’until’ often denotes in Scripture, as he has shewn, a fixed period, but often also an infinite time, as in that, "Even to your old age I am He." [Isa 46:4] Will God then cease to be when they are grown old? Also the Saviour in the Gospel, "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of this world." [Mat 28:20] Will He then leave His disciples at the end of the world? Again, the Apostle says, "He must reign till He has put His enemies under His feet." [1Co 15:15]

Be it understood then, that which if it had not been written might have been doubted, is expressly declared to us; other things are left to our own understanding. a

So here the Evangelist informs us, in that wherein there might have been room for error, that she was not known by her husband until the birth of her Son, that we might thence infer that much less was she known afterwards.

>millennial reign?

Who mentioned it?

>>751602

Hey if the definition of Chalcedon was true it would be mentioned in Nicea and Constantinopole, if monophysetistm was condemned before it would show up in Nicea, Constantinopole, Ephesos etc.

Stupid argument.

>>751608

>If it's a marriage which is intent on not procreating, then it's a wicked perversion and a sin

What docterine states this

>>751608

>If it's a marriage which is intent on not procreating, then it's a wicked perversion and a sin.

Jews before Christ had this when the women made vows of virginity though.

The Church doesn't allow this but it happened with the Jews to secure family lands and stuff probably.

>>751614

When people marry they must want to have kids. Otherwise how could they have relations and be one flesh? In fact that's what the Christian marriage is and that's where it differs from the Jewish one where women were seen as "property" of their husband don't get me wrong they need to obey us males I'm not defending feminism

>>751593

Actually yes if 1 Corinthians 15 is to be believed.

23 But every one in his own order: the firstfruits Christ, then they that are of Christ, who have believed in his coming.

24 Afterwards the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father, when he shall have brought to nought all principality, and power, and virtue.

25 For he must reign, until he hath put all his enemies under his feet.

26 And the enemy death shall be destroyed last: For he hath put all things under his feet. And whereas he saith,

27 All things are put under him; undoubtedly, he is excepted, who put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then the Son also himself shall be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

29 Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? why are they then baptized for them?

>>751613

You're not very coherent. I'm gathering that a catholic answer to Mat 1:25 is that "until" doesn't necessitate the consummation happened later. Is that right? If so, that's pretty weak.

The millennial reign was the subject of your example

>>751636

I'm not using Matthew to prove the dogma. It could go either way.

Matthew just wants to remark that the child that was born was definitely not Joseph's.

>The millennial reign

There will be no millennial reign on earth lad.

>>751614

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

THE ABSOLUTE STATE

>>751638

Imagine being so deep in doublethink that the mere mention of a biblical concept makes you defensive

Nobody mentioned premillennialism

>>751638

You're providing the catholic answer to the apparent contradiction with perpetual virginity and Mat 1:25. As a Catholic, you can't accept it going the "other way" and meaning that Joseph later consummated with mary, because the Pope infallibly declared that Mary was "ever virgin". If the Bible proves him wrong, the papacy is proven wrong in it's teaching authority (at least since 1950)

>>751642

Then I must have jumped ahead.

>>751644

Yes because I am Catholic and the church is infallible and the ruling authority on the interpretation of the Bible and the Natural law for example.

And its possible to prove that the church has to be like this, assuming this the infallible declarations of the pope are as infallible as the Holy Writ and can never contradict themselves unless "the papacy is proven wrong in it's teaching authority (at least since 1950)" which in turn would contradict Matthew 16:18.

>>751650

That would contradict your application of Mat 16:18. The scripture doesn't change, so if your expectation of prophecy doesn't hold true it's your reading that was wrong.

Further, it's readily apparent that the pope and catholic church was not the intent of Mat 16:18 because this "ever virgin" doctrine is patently false.

Jesus had brothers. Joseph consummated his marriage after Jesus was born. The Bible requires this.

Still, the pope spoke in contradiction to the Bible, saying "the ever virgin Mary" from the very source of authority of roman catholicism as if he were a prophet. " This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself "

He should beware:

<I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book (Rev. 22:18 NAS)

>>751640

>>751617

And what if one cannot have children snd yet still wishes to marry?

>>751521

>Cuck Pope = trump of Vatican

Change me mind

>>751656

No one claims the Scripture changes.

>>751656

I already said why your arguments were wrong above. But it's easier to repeat the same things over and over.

The Early Church and the modern Church and even the Reformers believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, your views are what happens when people think they can interpret the bible by themselves knowing zero about biblical exegesis and ignoring all that came before you because they gave you a Bible that they compiled.

>>751730

Yup you can marry in that case. It's perfectly ok. It's not your fault.

>>751549

>St Chrysostom

>BASED St. Chrysostom

ftfy

>a sign that she was just human herself

I could see this two ways: The way St. Chrysostom sees it, or Christ saw that moment as an opportunity to convey an important lesson about humility and a relationship with God, regardless of Mary being there. The reason I think the latter seems more likely is that we don't know what Mary said or if she, herself, made a big deal out of being His mom, or if it was the crowd. But, then again, I don't remember the scripture off the top of my head.