Biblical Mary

[Tong2020]

No. All that scriptures says is that Mary and Joseph did not have sex before the birth of Jesus. It says nothing about what happened afterwards.
Anything more is your interpretation.
You seem to be assuming that 'until' must mean something changed. But that is not true.

Then you are not really understanding what scriptures plainly say when it said that Joseph did not know Mary till she had brought forth Jesus, I am sorry to say.

If someone tells you that he did not sleep with his wife until they got married, what do you understand by that?

Tong
R4614

 

[Marymog]

23 They wrote this letter by them:

The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

First, is that how RCC official doctrines come and look like and are made, you say?

Second, there isn’t any teaching that was laid out there regarding the matter of circumcision and the law, but only a denial of the church at Jerusalem as giving the commandment “You must be circumcised and keep the law”, to those the men who went out from them, who requires of the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia.

Tong
R4613

If these matters were already settled BEFORE the meeting then why would they meet?

 

[Tong2020]

If these matters were already settled BEFORE the meeting then why would they meet?

They were settled before. Only that, certain men sent from the Jerusalem church came unsettling such by teaching a false doctrine. And because of that trouble that they created in the churches where they went, such as at Antioch, that Paul and Barnabas were compelled to meet with the leaders of the church where these men belonged and were sent from to see whether the apostles have given them such commandment to those men to teach such false teaching, to the point of requiring the brethren that were of the Gentiles in Antioch to be circumcised and are to keep the Mosaic Law.

Tong
R4616

 

[Mungo]

That really isn’t necessary. For my point is that you, as one who knows what RCC official doctrines are about Mary, don’t believe that Mary is co-redeemer nor is fount of grace, since it is not a doctrine of RCC since 2000 years ago. So that, if say any member of your church, more so a leader, a priest, would say and teach that Mary is co-redeemer and is fount of grace, you would be able to tell him that he is is preaching a doctrine that is not an official doctrine of the RCC and should not be doing such. It is disobedience to the RCC church leaders, to the Pope, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles. I guess you will not object that legitimate members and leaders even, teaching what is not official doctrine of RCC is bad and dangerous, and must be stopped by all means, if not, strongly and emphatically discouraged under pain of penalty of some sort of disciplinary action against such.

Tong
R4612

Dear me what a rant!
What triggered that? Being challenged to provide evidence for claims?

I don't know of any Catholic, priest of otherwise, that teaches, or would teach, that Mary is co-redeemer or fount of all grace.

People can propose teachings that are not official doctrine as long as they do not contradict official teaching.
People are allowed to speculate as long as they do not contradict official Catholic doctrine.

As I asked GodsGrace - "Would you prefer to have the Church be very authoritarian and stamp on any speculation?"
I wouldn't.

 

[Mungo]

Then you are not really understanding what scriptures plainly say when it said that Joseph did not know Mary till she had brought forth Jesus, I am sorry to say.


Tong
R4614

Neither the Greek heos, nor the Eglish translations until or till mean something changed after the "until" point.
Until is just a time marker.

until
n preposition & conjunction up to (the point in time or the event mentioned).
(Concise OXford English Dictionary)

The Collins Concise Dictionary says a little more:
until
1. up to (a time}
2. (used with a negative) before (a time of event)

Until is used to mark a period of time and says nothing about what happens outside that period of time.
Something happens, or does not happen from time point "A" until time point "B"

What happens after time point "B" we either:
1. simply do not know.
2. infer from something else in the text.
3. assume from the general context.
To assume an action changes leads to nonsense.

For example
"Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23).
Are we to assume therefore she had children after her death? NO

“There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived seven years with her husband after her marriage, and then as a widow until she was eighty-four.” Lk 2:36-37).
Does that imply she got married at the age of 84? NO

Jesus said to the Apostles “And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Mt 28:20).
Does that mean he won’t be with us after the end of the age? NO

but to [until] this day no one knows the place of his [Moses] burial (Deut 34:6)
Do we know the place of Moses burial? NO

For he [Christ] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (1Cor 15:25)
Will Christ stop reigning after he has put all his enemies under his feet? NO

Until I arrive, attend to the reading, exhortation, and teaching.(1Tim 4:13)
After Paul arrives will Timothy stop reading, exhortation and teaching? NO

except that you must hold fast to what you have until I come. (Rev 2:25)
Do we stop holding fast after Christ comes? NO

To the victor, who keeps to my ways until the end, I will give authority over the nations.(Rev 2:26)
Do the victors stop keeping Christ’s ways at the end? NO

keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ (1Tim 6:14)
Could Timothy stop keeping the commandments when Jesus appeared? NO

Go back to the definition of until in the COED
preposition & conjunction up to (the point in time or the event mentioned).

Do you follow that. Something happens (or does not happen) from time point A" until [up to] time point "B".

"When Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded and took Mary as his wife [time point "A"] But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born [time point "B"].

Let me rephrase that:
Between the time Joseph took Mary into his home and the time that Jesus was born Joseph had no sexual relations with her.
It's just about that period of time. Nothing more. It says nothing about what happened afterwards.
Anything that happens afterwords is conjecture.

If someone tells you that he did not sleep with his wife until they got married, what do you understand by that?

That they didn't commit the sin of fornication.

 

[Marymog]

They were settled before. Only that, certain men sent from the Jerusalem church came unsettling such by teaching a false doctrine. And because of that trouble that they created in the churches where they went, such as at Antioch, that Paul and Barnabas were compelled to meet with the leaders of the church where these men belonged and were sent from to see whether the apostles have given them such commandment to those men to teach such false teaching, to the point of requiring the brethren that were of the Gentiles in Antioch to be circumcised and are to keep the Mosaic Law.

Tong
R4616

No, it wasn't settled. That is why "Paul and Barnabas and some of the others from Judea had a dissension (disagreement) and debated with them." They were then appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and the elders. And then in Jerusalem some believers stood up and said gave their reason they disagreed with them. So now we have dissension from church leaders in Judea AND Jerusalem. It was only "After there had been much debate" that the matter was settled. Peter then stood up and said, " I have reached the decision". What decision did Peter have to make if it was already a settled matter Tong???? What was there to discuss and debate in the meeting if the matter was already settled BEFORE the meeting Tong??? There was no established teaching on the matter BEFORE the meeting but there was AFTER the meeting. That means there could not be a "false teaching" until AFTER the matter was settled in the meeting at Jerusalem. If anyone rejected that teaching from the Apostles AFTER they made their decision in Jerusalem on what was to be taught THEN it was a false teaching. Because.......as you.... Jesus told his Apostles; 'Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.’

Bible study Mary

 

[Ronald Nolette]

SOME disagree.
You put the same value on "Catholic Planet" website as on the Theological Commission of the Pontifical International Marian Academy and Pope Francis?
Now that is a dishonest debater

So which pope carries more weight. This Pope or other popes who exalted Mary more than ?Francis does? C'mon you aren't that stiupid.

Do we need to go back inhistory again and see all the writings of catholic hierarchies exalting Mary? I know you have shown an amazing ignorance of Roman church history. but the present hasn't always been what was past.

Francis said gay civil unions are OK but not marriages. Is that biblical or man made?

FrANCIS DECLARED SINCERE jEWS AND mUSLIMS CAN GO TRO HEAVEN. dID gOD OR MEN CHANGE THEIR MIND? C'MON you are not thatr ignorant. Or are you.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

In other words you can't show me what you claimed.
Your claims were lies.

Thus enbds this dishonest debate with a Catholic.

 

[Mungo]

So which pope carries more weight. This Pope or other popes who exalted Mary more than ?Francis does? C'mon you aren't that stiupid.

Do we need to go back inhistory again and see all the writings of catholic hierarchies exalting Mary? I know you have shown an amazing ignorance of Roman church history. but the present hasn't always been what was past.

Francis said gay civil unions are OK but not marriages. Is that biblical or man made?

FrANCIS DECLARED SINCERE jEWS AND mUSLIMS CAN GO TRO HEAVEN. dID gOD OR MEN CHANGE THEIR MIND? C'MON you are not thatr ignorant. Or are you.

Catholic Planet or the Theological Commission of the Pontifical International?

 

[Mungo]

Thus enbds this dishonest debate with a Catholic.

You said that before.
Another false claim.

 

[theefaith]

It’s not possible to exalt Mary as her sublime dignity deserves and glorify God in all He has done to and thru Her Lk 1:49

Jesus is not known cos Mary is not known!

the 9 million who came to faith in Christ in Mexico thru our lady of Guadeloupe as an example

 

[theefaith]

By their fruits you shall know them
Is Francis a valid pope? What does he teach the catholic faith or the modernist apostasy of religious indifferentism?

I have my doubts but could not declare him to be invalid

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You are 1,000 years out
The name "Roman Catholic Church " was invented by the Protestants in the 16th century.

Pope Gregory 1 considated power and created the papal states and launched great military and civil power. This is when the Roman Pontificus Maximus became the highest dictator in Christianity! He laos led Europe into the dark ages for near a millenium.

It may not have been dubbed the RCC till the reformation, but it was the RCC just the same. He caused problems with the eastern church which led to the full schism in the 11th century

Learn you rchurch history, then get back to me. YOu are too concerned about straining gnats and splitting hairs over words while swallowing the camels of false doctrine that are choking you

 

[Ronald Nolette]

1 and 2 are reasonable.
But I need my computer for this,,,,tomorrow.

Well I do not know if three was real or not. I do know my parish priest was a very conservative Catholic and the diocese I lived in did have dominicans. Whether they would have followed thorugh, I do not know- I left.

 

[Mungo]

Pope Gregory 1 considated power and created the papal states and launched great military and civil power. This is when the Roman Pontificus Maximus became the highest dictator in Christianity! He laos led Europe into the dark ages for near a millenium.

Rubbish, as usual backed up by no evidence

It may not have been dubbed the RCC till the reformation, but it was the RCC just the same. He caused problems with the eastern church which led to the full schism in the 11th century

It wasn't the RCC then and it's not the RCC now.
The Church led by Pope Francis is the Catholic Church.

Learn you rchurch history, then get back to me. YOu are too concerned about straining gnats and splitting hairs over words while swallowing the camels of false doctrine that are choking you

I'm not interested in learning your false version of history.

Thus enbds this dishonest debate with a Catholic.

You said that before.
Another false claim. (bad spelling too)

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Catholic Planet or the Theological Commission of the Pontifical International?

So todasy some struffed shirt commission writes differently than passt commissions? Which was is right and which one is wrong? Which commission is approved of God and which denied by god?

Which one has biblical standing if either do?

Romanism use to believe in 6 day creation, now they hold fiercely to darwinian evolution. Which is of god and which of Men? The fact that the Church made no open and strong effort to denounce Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Co-Mediatrix and Co-Advocatesays it all. Their silence in allowing these titles flourish in strong Catholic circles with no rebuttal is all that is needed.

 

[Mungo]

So todasy some struffed shirt commission writes differently than passt commissions? Which was is right and which one is wrong? Which commission is approved of God and which denied by god?

Which one has biblical standing if either do?

Romanism use to believe in 6 day creation, now they hold fiercely to darwinian evolution. Which is of god and which of Men? The fact that the Church made no open and strong effort to denounce Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Co-Mediatrix and Co-Advocatesays it all. Their silence in allowing these titles flourish in strong Catholic circles with no rebuttal is all that is needed.

More rubbish opinions.

You still haven't shown me where any of the links you posted say that Mary is co-redeemer or the fount of all grace as you claimed.

You also said "guess we are done tehn. I have tired of your foolishness. Have the last word if you wish" but that wasn't true either.

 

[Tong2020]

Dear me what a rant!
What triggered that? Being challenged to provide evidence for claims?

I don't know of any Catholic, priest of otherwise, that teaches, or would teach, that Mary is co-redeemer or fount of all grace.

People can propose teachings that are not official doctrine as long as they do not contradict official teaching.
People are allowed to speculate as long as they do not contradict official Catholic doctrine.

As I asked GodsGrace - "Would you prefer to have the Church be very authoritarian and stamp on any speculation?"
I wouldn't.

<<<People can propose teachings that are not official doctrine as long as they do not contradict official teaching.>>>

So, the proposal that Mary is co-redeemer and fount of grace does not contradict official Catholic teaching?

How about a proposal that Mary is not co-redeemer and not fount of grace, does that contradict official Catholic teaching?

Which is which? Either a proposed teaching is contradictory to official Catholic teaching or is contradictory. Of the two proposed teaching, which is contradictory and which is not?

<<<People are allowed to speculate as long as they do not contradict official Catholic doctrine.>>>

So, people are not allowed to speculate when they contradict official doctrine? Of not allowed, then they are prohibited. Under the pains of what, if one speculates anything that contradict official Catholic doctrine?

By the way and on a different note, what is your stand on the proposal that Mary is co-redeemer? Would you agree with your Pope’s stand on it?

Tong
R4617

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
If someone tells you that he did not sleep with his wife until they got married, what do you understand by that?

That they didn't commit the sin of fornication.

Clever, but not clever enough. For the statement isn’t about the matter of committing the sin of fornication, but about the matter of husband and wife sleeping together.

Can you to tell the difference?

1. He did not sleep with his wife until they got married.

2. He did not sleep with his wife before they got married.

What reasonable conclusion can you get out of that, as pertains to him sleeping with his wife?

Here’s another.

1. Mary was not a mother until she gave birth to Jesus.

2. Mary was not a mother before she gave birth to Jesus.

What reasonable conclusion can you get out of that, as pertains to Mary being a mother?

The thoughts of others who reads this post would be appreciated.

Tong
R4618

 

[Mungo]

<<<People can propose teachings that are not official doctrine as long as they do not contradict official teaching.>>>

So, the proposal that Mary is co-redeemer and fount of grace does not contradict official Catholic teaching?

How about a proposal that Mary is not co-redeemer and not fount of grace, does that contradict official Catholic teaching?

Which is which? Either a proposed teaching is contradictory to official Catholic teaching or is contradictory. Of the two proposed teaching, which is contradictory and which is not?

<<<People are allowed to speculate as long as they do not contradict official Catholic doctrine.>>>

So, people are not allowed to speculate when they contradict official doctrine? Of not allowed, then they are prohibited. Under the pains of what, if one speculates anything that contradict official Catholic doctrine?

I think I phrased both of those quotes badly so I will try withdraw them and rephrase them and just say:

People are allowed to speculate but should not contradict official Catholic doctrine.

By the way and on a different note, what is your stand on the proposal that Mary is co-redeemer? Would you agree with your Pope’s stand on it?

Tong
R4617

I don't know that anyone is proposing that Mary is a co-redeemer, certainly not the Pope.
Perhaps you mean Co-Redemptrix. There are people who would like that to be official but it is not, and according to the sources I gave, not likely to be.

As for fount of all grace, the Catholic Catechism clearly states that grace come from God. He is the source of grace. Therefore I would say that a suggestion that Mary is the fount of all grace would contradict that.
fount1
n noun
1 a source of something desirable.
(Concise Oxford English Dictionary)