tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post2605777527191454699..comments2023-10-30T08:00:43.585-05:00Comments on Shameless Popery: Why the Marian Doctrines MatterJoe Heschmeyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-38367435864775453322012-03-10T13:23:15.606-06:002012-03-10T13:23:15.606-06:00Anne, I'm a mother too. I'd never thought ...Anne, I'm a mother too. I'd never thought of that possibility before. That is so likely that I can't believe it never crossed my mind.<br /><br />Thanks for bringing it up. On Easter, I will have a an added beautiful imagery in my head.Yes, I'm Catholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07224387870248366957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-7444431269819260742012-03-10T06:02:49.844-06:002012-03-10T06:02:49.844-06:00One of the posts asked "why did Mary, the mot...One of the posts asked "why did Mary, the mother of Jesus, not come to the tomb in the morning to annoint the body?" Also, I cannot tell if any of the post are written by women. So as a woman and mother and grandmother and faithful Catholic, I would like to propose an answer. "When Jesus rose from the dead, he appeared to His mother first. And this intimate moment was so private and personal, it is NOT recorded in the bible as not all of Jesus' miracles are recorded because the book would be infinitely too large to read. Thank you.Anne EMERSONhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04373413626693012502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-42852571584269811632012-03-09T18:36:57.752-06:002012-03-09T18:36:57.752-06:00Montague,
I was understanding you to be asking if...<b>Montague,</b><br /><br />I was understanding you to be asking if the Marian doctrines were logically required. And, in the sense that God could have done otherwise, I suppose they're not. Of course, this is equally true of all sorts of Christian doctrines. But these doctrines are still True (not <i>just</i> Beautiful). That is, these are things that our Christian forebears tell us actually occurred, and we believe them. We don't understand them to have said, "wouldn't it be neat if this were true?" But being True, they're no less Beautiful for it.<br /><br />I.X.,<br /><br />JoeJoe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-91510665048821658392012-03-09T18:27:45.956-06:002012-03-09T18:27:45.956-06:00... So the matter is not entirely what clearly fol...... So the matter is not entirely what clearly follows infallibly by all accounts, but rather what is Beautiful and Harmonious.<br /><br />By which I mean, it is a good doctrine. As long as it is in its place, like every good Love.Montaguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15855928733382673100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-91422289934440626382012-03-08T12:37:35.741-06:002012-03-08T12:37:35.741-06:00@Montague
The way I'd construct that last poi...@Montague<br /><br />The way I'd construct that last point is thus:<br /><br />1. Jesus is the King<br />2. In the Davidic Kingdom the Queen was the *mother* of the King.<br />3. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Davidic Dynasty and therefore the Davidic King par-excellence<br />4. Therefore Mary is His Queen, the Queen of Heaven.Restless Pilgrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401126921440086739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-87223310481243337932012-03-07T22:46:04.035-06:002012-03-07T22:46:04.035-06:00Montague,
More or less, yes. It's not that e...<b>Montague</b>,<br /><br />More or less, yes. It's not that each of those last two steps is logically <i>required</i>, but they certainly flow logically, and in light if the Scriptural evidence.<br /><br />I.X.,<br /><br />JoeJoe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-70630203901388433022012-03-07T19:25:25.411-06:002012-03-07T19:25:25.411-06:00Thank you, Joe!
Yeah, I sorta saw that coming. So...Thank you, Joe!<br /><br />Yeah, I sorta saw that coming. So, and correct me if I mess up, but what I seem to be getting here is:<br /><br />Mary had faith.<br />Mary brought the Second Adam into the world by her faith.<br />Therefore Mary is the second Eve, that is, perfect without sin.<br />Therefore, Mary is the Queen of Heaven.<br /><br />Like that?Montaguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15855928733382673100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-68151058908705280282012-03-07T01:54:46.516-06:002012-03-07T01:54:46.516-06:00"Catholic-Mary has the attributes of a deity:..."Catholic-Mary has the attributes of a deity:"<br /><br />I think it's worth to have a quick rundown of each of these.<br /><br />1. "she is without sin"<br /><br />Has the Angel Gabriel sinned? No? Is he therefore God?<br /><br />2. "a mediator"<br /><br />Do you ever ask anyone to pray for you? You've just made that person a mediator.<br /><br />3. "hears the prayers of mankind"<br /><br />God is the God of the living, not of the dead. Are you saying that it's *impossible* for those who are fully alive in Christ in Heaven to hear our petitions?<br /><br />4. "has her own altars, gets incense and candles"<br /><br />We give honour to those whom we love.<br /><br />5. "is lauded with titles such as 'Queen of Heaven'" <br /><br />In the book of Revelation there's a woman in Heaven with a crown - sounds a lot like a queen.<br /><br />As Queen of Heaven Mary is also the typological fulfillment of the pattern we see in the Kingdom of David (1 kings 2:19)<br /><br />6. "and 'Mother of God'"<br /><br />I think your Christology will run into some serious problems if you deny this. Are you saying that Mary did not give birth to God? <br /><br />Aim at Mary, hit Jesus.Restless Pilgrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401126921440086739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-62403948132192406262012-03-07T01:38:06.316-06:002012-03-07T01:38:06.316-06:00"Mary who only had to carry a baby"
Aim..."Mary who only had to carry a baby"<br /><br />Aim at Mary, hit Jesus. Boom. <br /><br />I would suggest that Taylor's caution here is well warranted...<br /><br />The Ark was just a box with some stuff stuck in it...right? (2 Samuel 6:2-7)Restless Pilgrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401126921440086739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-87014105428502245092012-03-07T01:30:05.258-06:002012-03-07T01:30:05.258-06:00"Which is ironic, considering that most evang..."Which is ironic, considering that most evangelicals are perfectly okay with contraception. It's sinful not to marry, but okay to artificially prevent the consummation of the marital act?"<br /><br />@Georg I had this exact thought as I was driving home tonight. You beat me to the punch :)Restless Pilgrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401126921440086739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-24861903504551158862012-03-06T22:32:43.770-06:002012-03-06T22:32:43.770-06:00Montague,
My point with the post was to answer th...Montague,<br /><br />My point with the post was to answer the idea that the Catholic Marian doctrines are irrelevant. As I mentioned in the original post, since Mariology is tied to Christology, "attacks on the Marian doctrines often devolve into attacks on Jesus Christ and Sacred Scripture." Now, that's not a universal rule, but as I think the post and the subsequent comments showed, it's a surprisingly common trend.<br /><br />This doesn't automatically prove the Catholic Marian doctrines true, I realize. But it does explain why we think that these Marian doctrines are worth fighting for.<br /><br />I'm glad you asked about Luke 11:27-28. I've <a href="http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/09/did-jesus-rebuke-his-mother-in-luke-819.html" rel="nofollow">written on it before</a>, but the short answer is that you're exactly right. Catholics don't just venerate every blood relative of Jesus. As amazing as Mary is for her role as the <i>Theotokos</i> (God-bearer) and as the Mother of God (which, of course, includes a whole lot more work than nine months of pregnancy, as any mother will tell you), what ultimately sets her apart is her perfect faithfulness. <br /><br />By the way, this is yet one more reason that Mary is so important. While Christ is, of course, the perfect exemplar of the virtues, the virtue of faith is complex with Christ. After all, “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1), while Christ already has a more perfect knowledge and sight. Precisely because she's <i>not</i> God, Mary is an exemplar of faith.<br /><br />Feel free to check that post out -- I'm interested in your thoughts on it.<br /><br />I.X.,<br /><br />JoeJoe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-16326908613291013962012-03-06T22:11:47.477-06:002012-03-06T22:11:47.477-06:00I mainly find fault in this because it SEEMS to at...I mainly find fault in this because it SEEMS to attack an idiotic position, and then say "hey, look, If you don't believe in the RC doctrine you are like this fool". <br /><br />I'm not sure if some troll's already quoted this, but I'm wondering what your answer is:<br /><br />"As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you." He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.""<br /><br />Which seems to indicate that Mary's blessedness was due to her obedience - and not due to the simple fact of Bearing and Raising God Incarnate. (by which I mean, the AMAZING fact.)Montaguehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15855928733382673100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-32371781941251634252012-03-06T21:21:30.593-06:002012-03-06T21:21:30.593-06:00"only had to carry a baby". Aim at Mary,..."only had to carry a baby". Aim at Mary, hit Jesus. Case in point.<br /><br />I've also considered (am still considering actually) a possible call to celibate life, and I have been told in no uncertain terms that celibacy is not of God. In fact, one guy even told me that it is a sin not to marry. Aim at celibacy, hit Jesus.<br /><br />Which is ironic, considering that most evangelicals are perfectly okay with contraception. It's sinful not to marry, but okay to artificially prevent the consummation of the marital act?G Lainghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09736882298990748417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-28599277042354399782012-03-06T20:43:34.323-06:002012-03-06T20:43:34.323-06:00Also, Mary "only had to carry a baby"? A...Also, Mary "only had to carry a baby"? Are you serious? She carried God himself, the second person of the Bleased Trinity, the uncontainable God, in her womb! That's not just "a baby"--be careful of blaspheming. Maybe that will require some reflection on your part. <br /><br />You'll also note that the events in Judges happened much before Mary.Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13288875157147852833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-53048846315299450692012-03-06T20:35:18.700-06:002012-03-06T20:35:18.700-06:00Any saint can have an altar, candles, or incense. ...Any saint can have an altar, candles, or incense. Yet we know that latria is given to God alone. Thus the altars only are used to worship God, giving honor to the saint--which in the end is just glorifying God. <br /><br />Of course Mary and any saints can hear prayers. They are the cloud of great witnesses mentioned in Hebrews. God is of the living, not the dead. <br /><br />There is a difference between mediating grace and being the source of grace, which only Christ is. <br /><br />The main point of these doctrines is to glorify God's power, love, and grace. I don't see why there is so much hate for this. If anyone is worshiping Mary, they've clearly misunderstood. If God didn't want people to be part of salvation history, He wouldn't have made us!Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13288875157147852833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-41025829164538834622012-03-06T20:07:39.713-06:002012-03-06T20:07:39.713-06:00There exists a vast gap between Bible-Mary and Cat...There exists a vast gap between Bible-Mary and Catholic-Mary. <br /><br />Catholic-Mary has the attributes of a deity: she is without sin, a mediator, hears the prayers of mankind, has her own altars, gets incense and candles, is lauded with titles such as "Queen of Heaven" and "Mother of God". The Book would identify this Catholic-Mary with devil worship: 1 Kings 11:33, 2 Kings 23:13; Acts 19:27-28; Jeremiah 44:17-25. <br /><br />The Bible says, "<em>Blessed ABOVE women</em>" - that would be above Mary - is Jael the wife of Heber (Judges 5:24). God has more respect for a brave woman who did something extraordinarily courageous, because she smashed somebody's brains out (Judges 4:21), than for Mary who only had to carry a baby. Reflect on that for a while. <br /><br />The Bible says "<em>not to think of men above that which is written</em>" (1 Cor 4:6). That includes Mary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-12826560306389793672012-03-06T19:16:42.331-06:002012-03-06T19:16:42.331-06:00*sigh*... I do wonder sometimes whether people who...*sigh*... I do wonder sometimes whether people who write such rants actually think they're convincing anybody. Still...at least it's being done with gentleness and respect, right? (1 Peter 3:15)<br /><br />I'm also very confused by the real blind spot they appear to have for celibacy. When I was discerning and talking with my Protestant friends about whether I was being called to a life of celibacy I was more than a little shocked by their reaction (http://restlesspilgrim.net/blog/2011/09/25/the-curious-case-of-celibacy/). <br /><br />I do scratch my head sometimes when I listen to anti-Catholics *desperate* to make Mary *not* ever-virgin. <br /><br />[shrug]Restless Pilgrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401126921440086739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-274075911645363082012-03-06T18:08:32.649-06:002012-03-06T18:08:32.649-06:00Mack,
Of you use such softball arguments as "...Mack,<br /><br />Of you use such softball arguments as "the Virgin Mary isn't ever called that in the Bible" or they celibacy isn't in the Bible, you won't get taken seriously. Everyone knows that the term Trinity isn't in the Bible either--it had to be derived from Scripture (by the Catholic Church, no less). <br /><br />Also, in regards to the goddess comment, which is obviously not true: Grow up. In retrospect, are you truly pleased with your comment?Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13288875157147852833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-35148615382225163032012-03-06T17:31:07.666-06:002012-03-06T17:31:07.666-06:00MackQuigley,
Your comment was basically a string ...<b>MackQuigley</b>,<br /><br />Your comment was basically a string of mischaracterizations of my actual arguments, coupled with your own baseless assertions. Given this, I don’t intend to respond to each of the “points” you raise. If you want to advance a coherent argument about a discreet point, I’d be more than glad to respond, but if you just want to rant, you’re wasting everyone’s time.<br /><br />Your apparent hatred of Mary (and given your sixth paragraph, "hatred" doesn't seem an exaggeration at all) appears more pathological than logical. It’s quite contrary to Scripture, which says that all generations will call her Blessed (Luke 1:48), rather than a liar or a dog. <br /><br />So let me just make one major point in closing here, which I’ll lay out as a logical syllogism:<br /><br />1. Scripture praises the way that “all generations” will speak to/about Mary (Lk 1:48);<br />2. In many of these generations, the only ones talking to/about Mary were Catholics (and later, like-minded Orthodox and Copts);<br />3. Therefore, Scripture praises Catholic veneration of Mary.<br /><br />Note that it <b>cannot</b> be the Protestant approach to Mary that Scripture is praising here, since that’s not even remotely found in “all generations.” If you want to see what it looks like for “all generations” to call her Blessed, look at the way that the Medieval Church spoke about Mary. Scripture <i>praises</i> that (and the way that all generations speak of her). You condemn it.<br /><br />So you can parrot the same slanderous charges that we Catholics are just a bunch of “Bible-ignorant papists” and “superstitious fanatics” (as you claimed in your original post), or that we “judge the Holy Bible by men's traditions” or are “equating a first century Jewish woman with the third person of the Trinity.” All of that is false, and these cheap <i>ad hominem</i> attacks don’t conceal the fact that you’re clearly losing when it comes to actually examining the Scriptures like Christians, rather than name-calling and mudslinging like children.<br /><br />If you can't defend your actual point using reason and Scripture, then just admit to being wrong, or at least admit to being unable to defend your point. Resorting to calumny diminishes your contributions to this discussion, to say nothing of the damage it does to your own soul.<br /><br />I.X.,<br /><br />JoeJoe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-55163320496614441462012-03-06T04:26:39.358-06:002012-03-06T04:26:39.358-06:00Re. the KJV: there are some denominations, usually...Re. the KJV: there are some denominations, usually smaller ones, that accord an undue reverence to the KJV - I heard one person once refer to the New International Version as the New International Perversion. Some, it seems, do not even realise that it is not actually called the Authorised Version, which is more of a short-hand title. It was referred to that way only because at one time it was the only English language translation that was authorised to be read in churches (the sub-title to the KJV actually uses the word 'appointed' not authorised).in an era when there are many versions that have been authorised to be read in church by various ecclessial bodies (versions which are far more accurate translations even if not as beautifully written) the title is an anachronism. <br /><br />There are two main dangers here. One is that the KJV, beautful though the language is,is of its time; few of those reading it today are experts in Jocobean English. Word meannigs have changed. Secondly, to give this level of priority to a translation is to risk superceding the actual text.Paddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10112119118958158131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-5653976151021095352012-03-05T23:44:55.415-06:002012-03-05T23:44:55.415-06:00No, problem. You know I got your back, Joe.No, problem. You know I got your back, Joe.Deltaflutehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00489950329698009256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-30760771940794386412012-03-05T23:37:47.533-06:002012-03-05T23:37:47.533-06:00Arthad,
It's true that procreation is an ordi...<b>Arthad</b>,<br /><br />It's true that procreation is an ordinary end of marriage. What we're dealing with her are what are called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_marriage" rel="nofollow">spiritual (or Josephite) marriages</a>. Historically, we've seen these sorts of non-sexual marriages in specific contexts, like an older man protecting a consecrated Virgin. Here, whether or not Mary was a consecrated Virgin, there's an obvious reason to enter a non-sexual marriage: namely, to create a stable environment in which to raise the Christ Child.<br /><br />But the fact is, Mary <i>does</i> seem to be a consecrated Virgin. This explains: (a) why they hadn't consummated their marriage when the angel Gabriel visited Mary; (b) why Mary expressed shock and confusion at the very idea of getting pregnant, (c) why Mary and Joseph still weren't having sex after they moved in together, and (d) why Mary was still a Virgin on Christmas Day. As I said to MackQuigley above, the angel Gabriel doesn't command Mary to remain a Virgin: she's just doing it anyway, suggesting that this is a pre-existing promise she made to God.<br /><br />Finally, let me say this: even if you find the whole thing a bit strange, the situation the Holy Family is in is unique. Ordinarily, wives don't become the mother of children who aren't their husband's. But there's a world of difference between surrogacy and the Incarnation, and attempting to shoehorn the Holy Family into the behavior expected of ordinary families strikes me as ill-conceived. <br /><br />I.X.,<br /><br />Joe<br /><br />P.S. <b>Deltaflute</b>, great point with the <i>chevra kadisha</i>. That's an incredible argument that I'd never considered. I've got a co-worker who just returned from sitting shiva for his father, and I didn't even piece the two things together. Since Mary would have been sitting shiva on Easter morning, it wouldn't make sense for her to be at the Tomb, which is further proof that "Mary, the mother of James" is another woman.Joe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-47251631452365604842012-03-05T23:28:25.762-06:002012-03-05T23:28:25.762-06:00I humbly admit that my apologetics is appalling so...I humbly admit that my apologetics is appalling so if I'm wrong, please correct me. But here it goes...<br /><br />Arthad- You bring up the point that in a marriage the point is procreation. That's true. The Church does say you need to consummate your marriage for it to be legitimate. But you only have to do that once. If you wish not to engage, then you do not have to for the rest of your marriage. (From a married person's view point, it seems a bit strange, but that's the truth of it).<br /><br />Secondly, and more importantly, the relationship between Mary, Jesus and Joseph was set apart from that of ordinary marriages. Joseph knew before hand that Mary had the intention of remaining a virgin. (The assumption is that Joseph was a widower possibly with children.) <br /><br />There a number of instances in the Bible where people are set apart by God for various reasons. I think of Noah and his family or Lot and his family.<br /><br />MackQuigly- Ever heard of chevra kadisha? It's a Jewish burial party made up of volunteers, not family members. The family is in shiva, the week of morning. They don't do anything really and tear their clothes. So I don't expect Jesus's mother to be there to cleanse his body.<br /><br />And as for the lying. It's not a lie. She was married to Joseph and that makes Joseph his adopted father or step-dad.Deltaflutehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00489950329698009256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-65373352543083131802012-03-05T23:26:12.343-06:002012-03-05T23:26:12.343-06:00MackQuigley,
To address the rest of your point ge...MackQuigley,<br /><br />To address the rest of your point generally:<br /><br />(1) I've <a href="http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/03/biblical-defense-of-clerical-celibacy.html" rel="nofollow">addressed 1 Timothy 4:3</a> before.<br /><br />(2) You're again reading 1 Cor. 7:2 as a commandment, rather than a concession (disregarding 1 Cor. 7:6). And once again, if you're saying that literally <i>every</i> person is required to get married, then St. Paul is preaching against both Christ and himself. Which gets back to my original point: aim for Mary, end up attacking Christ.<br /><br />(3) You say that it “is a gross perversion of Pauline doctrine to claim he viewed celibacy as 'ideal,'” without actually addressing any of the points from 1 Cor 7.<br /><br />(4) If bishops and ministers were required to be married fathers (as you claim), then neither Jesus or St. Paul were allowed to be Christian ministers.<br /><br />(5) You claim that Paul wanted young women to get married and have kids (citing 1 Timothy 5:14), while Paul actually makes clear that it's superior for them to be celibate (1 Cor. 7:8-9).<br /><br />(6) Are you suggesting that Christ is wanting Christians to physically castrate themselves for the Kingdom?<br /><br />(7) Acts 1:13 literally refers to him as “Judas of James.” The KJV adds the words “the brother” before “of,” but those words aren't found anywhere in the Greek, or implied in any clear way. I have no idea what motivates your decision to go with this translation, and to declare it “the correct Bible” and all other translations “bogus.”<br /><br />(8) Your claim about Luke 24:10 and Mark 16:1 turns upon the ridiculous idea that when the Gospel writers want to describe the Virgin Mary going to the Tomb, they describe her as “Mary, the mother of James.” That doesn't even pass the laugh test. If the woman Mark and Luke are describing is the Mother of God, why would they refer to her by her relationship with one of the numerous Jameses?<br /><br />(9) You write: “<i>Your dilemma: either Mary is James' mother or else "Virgin Mary" was such a minor character that Luke didn't even mention her visiting her son's body.</i>” Wouldn't an infinitely more reasonable interpretation be that the Virgin Mary wasn't in the pre-dawn group of women going to anoint the Body? That perhaps she was coming later, or came separately? For example, we know that the Apostle John kept the faith throughout the Passion, yet he clearly didn't join the women at the Tomb initially (see John 20:1-2). Does that mean he's “such a minor figure” in the New Testament, as a result?<br /><br />(10) Your assaults on Mary are absurd. You're seriously claiming that Mary was <i>lying</i> about Jesus' paternity in Lk. 2:48? That she was a liar and a blasphemer? This is sick stuff. Does that mean that St. Luke is a liar and a blasphemer, too, for chronicling Jesus' lineage through St. Joseph (Lk. 3:23)? The fact is, it's precisely because St. Joseph is Jesus' adopted father that Jesus fulfills the Old Testament genealogical prophesies (see Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38). So once again: aim for Mary, end up attacking Christ.<br /><br />(11) I've <a href="http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/09/did-jesus-rebuke-his-mother-in-luke-819.html" rel="nofollow">addressed Luke 11:28 (along with Luke 8:19-21)</a> before.<br /><br />I.X.,<br /><br />JoeJoe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4999044146888823867.post-22867912795702021322012-03-05T22:41:38.509-06:002012-03-05T22:41:38.509-06:00MackQuigley,
Your major claim seems to be that:
...MackQuigley,<br /><br />Your major claim seems to be that: <br /><br />“<i>It is not a sin to remain unmarried as long as God commands it (Jeremiah 16:2), but sham marriage is a sin because celibacy is only for the unmarried. In case you forgot, Jesus was unmarried.<br /><br />God was not a double-minded schizophrenic who ridiculously commanded Joseph and Mary to be both celibates and married at the same time! (cf., 1 Sam. 2:20).</i>”<br /><br />This is false. From Matthew 1, we know that at the time of the Annunciation, (a) Joseph was already Mary’s husband (Mt. 1:19), and (b) Mary was a Virgin (Mt. 1: 23). By your logic, this apparently makes God a “double-minded schizophrenic.”<br /><br />Without getting into too much detail, Jewish marriages occur in two stages. After the first stage, the man has a certain amount of time (generally a year) to prepare a place for his new bride. Mt. 1:24-25 specifies that while Mary was pregnant with the Christ Child, Joseph and Mary completed the second stage of the marriage. This is typically accomplished by consummating the marriage, but Mt. 1:25 specifies that during the pregnancy, they still didn’t have sex. I have to emphasize that none of this is required by Jewish Law, nor does the Angel Gabriel order Mary not to have sex while pregnant with Christ. Rather, the evidence suggests that Mary was (as Sam suggested) a consecrated temple Virgin.<br /><br />Your response to this is that Mt. 1:25 says “until,” suggesting that the marriage was consummated at a later point. Actually, the Greek word here (<i>heōs</i>) doesn’t have the same connotations that the English word does (see Mark 14:25 for another good example where the Greek and English words don't mean the same thing). Matthew isn’t trying to say that Mary and Joseph did or didn’t have sex after the birth of Christ. He’s merely establishing Mary was a Virgin both at the point of Christ’s conception <b>and birth</b>, in fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. (Ironically, you denied that Mary was a Virgin at Christ’s Birth in the second paragraph of your original post).<br /><br />I.X.,<br /><br />JoeJoe Heschmeyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06998682878420098470noreply@blogger.com