|
REPORT ABUSIVE REPLY
|
|
Message Subject
|
Virgin Mary has just appeared in Medjugorje
|
|
Poster Handle
|
Anonymous Coward |
|
Post Content
|
...
You still offer no proof of your assertion, and I have replied to you twice.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 70175159 The proof is in verse 25. It's right there in that verse - He knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son. It's throughout the bible. In Genesis, Adam knew his wife, and she conceived (gen 4:1) Cain knew his wife, and she conceived (17) Adam knew his wife again (25) In Judges there is this: But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. When the bible speaks of knowing a woman (or a man, as in the case of Lot), it's speaking of sex. And there is nothing at all wrong with Joseph and Mary having sex. They were married. You are inferring that Joseph “knew” Mary after the birth of Jesus, and that is not stated whatsoever. The scripture passage you reference simply discounts any possibility of Joseph having been the biolological father of Jesus, that’s all. You are right that there would have been nothing wrong with Joseph and Mary having intercourse, since they were husband and wife, but there was simply no reason for them to have such a relationship. According to Church tradition (largely discarded by Protestants) both Mary and Joseph were consecrated virgins, and married only to cooperate with God’s will to provide Jesus with an earthly Family. People automatically think in carnal terms, but the fact is that not everyone those urges, and some with high callings are given the gift (yes, gift) of celibacy. I'm not inferring. It comes down to how that particular passage should be interpreted. Is it in harmony with other such passages? What was the intent of the passage? Just as you say there was no reason for them to have a relationship like that, I say there is an actual verse in the bible that indicates they did. Church tradition may state one thing, but where is that tradition backed up or validated in God's word? And it's not just a Roman Catholic thing, so please don't think I'm attacking you or your church. Many churches have traditions which aren't supported by scripture. I'll also add that whether or not Joseph and Mary actually had a relationship like that doesn't really matter. It doesn't change the fact that Mary was blessed. And it doesn't change anything regarding our Lord. The fact is, nowhere are the details of Mary and Joseph’s marital relationship explicitly stated anywhere. It is good to discuss differences in a mutually respectful manner. In the Catholic Church, Sacred Tradition is on equal footing with Sacred Scripture, so we understand that not everything there is to know about the Faith is mentioned in the Bible, and cannot possibly be contained in the Bible. Scripture itself tells us as much. We rely on the Magisterium (teaching body of the Church) to definitively interpret Sacred Scripture; this does not mean that Catholics are not to read the Bible on their own, because they are encouraged to do so, but we rely on the authorities to make definitive interpretations. The Church established by Christ is 2,000 years old, and is rich with extra-biblical teachings and writings, experiences of saints and mystics, rituals, sacramentals, etc., that enrich the Faith. Contrast this with the post-Reformation denominations that subscribe to the un-biblical practice of Sola Scriptura, and whose churches are less than 600 years old and have mostly abandoned the great traditions that all Christians once enjoyed. The disparity of church histories, primarily the non-Catholic Christian rejection of Sacred Tradition and central authority, is at the root of most of the disagreements.
|
|
|
Please verify you're human:
|
|
|
Reason for reporting:
|
