Zone1 Mary's sinlessness

[hadit]

Then he wouldn't have needed to pass that obligation onto John. Read what he said. He made John her son. He made Mary John's mother.

If His brothers were there, He could have passed it onto them. John WAS there. What was He supposed to do, yell, "James, take care of Mom!" and hope James heard him from his hiding place? Obviously, His relationship with John was such that He was confident John would take good care of her.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And you think I am obligated to accept that as the truth why?

I'm glad you don't.

 

[ding]

If His brothers were there, He could have passed it onto them. John WAS there. What was He supposed to do, yell, "James, take care of Mom!" and hope James heard him from his hiding place? Obviously, His relationship with John was such that He was confident John would take good care of her.

He made Mary John's mother. He made John Mary's son. Read what he said.

 

[ding]

I'm glad you don't.

Why would I argue about something so dumb and insignificant with someone who has no desire to actually understand any part of my faith. It's actually quite disrespectful.

 

[Meriweather]

How? He was known as the "Lord's brother". He could not be that if he was not the son of Mary. Are you calling Clopas the Lord?

Go back to the etymology. The word for brother/cousin/close relative was the same. Then research the sons of Clopas (close relative of Joseph) and Mary (close relative of Mary). Even research that particular James. Son of Clopas.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why would I argue about something so dumb and insignificant with someone who has no desire to actually understand any part of my faith. It's actually quite disrespectful.

Then take it up with those disrespecting your faith and saying things like hurricanes occur to punish gays.

I just relate what I hear from the religioso.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Go back to the etymology. The word for brother/cousin/close relative was the same. Then research the sons of Clopas (close relative of Joseph) and Mary (close relative of Mary). Even research that particular James. Son of Clopas.

What was the word for rape?

Because I would think Mary would have used it. To save face, if nothing else.

 

[hadit]

He made Mary John's mother. He made John Mary's son. Read what he said.

Who else was there that He could have given her to?

 

[hadit]

Go back to the etymology. The word for brother/cousin/close relative was the same. Then research the sons of Clopas (close relative of Joseph) and Mary (close relative of Mary). Even research that particular James. Son of Clopas.

In every case, you have to refer to the word meaning something else entirely. I don't know why you fight so hard to avoid acknowledging that there is no reason whatsoever that Mary and Joseph could not have had a satisfying sex life with multiple children.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In every case, you have to refer to the word meaning something else entirely. I don't know why you fight so hard to avoid acknowledging that there is no reason whatsoever that Mary and Joseph could not have had a satisfying sex life with multiple children.

Bur they are already in a position of believing that a God impregnating Mary is a more likely explanation than a Jewish girl telling a lie.

Such a person cannot be reasoned with, on this topic.

 

[Donald H]

I never said you were bad. I don't judge people. Bad people can do good things just like good people can do bad things. I just describe the thing.

I'd love to engage you in your clever arguments but I can't really improve upon what I just wrote. I think that said it all.

I'll explain what I've said but you're going to have to behave politely and understand that we are probably going to disagree on what is bad and what is good. It's your choice.

 

[Donald H]

I'm happy for you to believe anything you want. I'm even happy for you to do things that are wrong or bad. Do you know why? Because I won't be the one who has to experience those consequences. You will. I can try to show you the error of your ways but only you can decide if you want to be better.

What are you asking of me that would make me better in your opinion? I think that you can't accept me as an atheist. That's always going to be your own failing.

 

[ding]

Then take it up with those disrespecting your faith and saying things like hurricanes occur to punish gays.

I just relate what I hear from the religioso.

Am I supposed to tilt at every windmill you find offensive? I'm only one man. Sounds like it might be a full time job.

 

[ding]

Who else was there that He could have given her to?

Are you even listening to yourself? Read what is there. Stop trying to read things that weren't there. Same goes for Mary sinning. Stop making up things that weren't there.

 

[ding]

I'll explain what I've said but you're going to have to behave politely and understand that we are probably going to disagree on what is bad and what is good. It's your choice.

I don't need you to explain it.

 

[ding]

What are you asking of me that would make me better in your opinion? I think that you can't accept me as an atheist. That's always going to be your own failing.

I won't accept your subversion and attempts at subordinating religion. Is that really that hard to understand?

 

[crossbody]

Is MARY SINLESS?​

Once Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden; everyone born of man's seed is born in sin with a sin nature. Therefore they must be born again.

Mary was born in sin with a sin nature being born of man's seed.
Jesus was not born in sin with a sin nature, nor was he born of man's seed.

 

[Meriweather]

What was the word for rape?

Because I would think Mary would have used it. To save face, if nothing else.

My point is that if you don't believe the story, why change the story instead of simply saying, "This never happened in any shape or form." What is the purpose of changing the story of a miracle into a story of a rape?

 

[Meriweather]

In every case, you have to refer to the word meaning something else entirely. I don't know why you fight so hard to avoid acknowledging that there is no reason whatsoever that Mary and Joseph could not have had a satisfying sex life with multiple children.

Actually, I am not fighting at all. I am merely presenting the original language and the original traditions of early Christians and why the Catholic Church did not say to the Protestants fifteen hundred years later, "Hey! You're right! the early Christians had it all wrong! Tell us, what else did they have wrong, because we want to be right, too."

hadit, you want to follow other possibilities, and you should feel free to do that. After all, some have been following these possibilities for five hundred years now. But some of us choose to follow the first possibility, but not blindly. We go back research/understand the original languages of the Bible. We study what else the Bible mentions about the children of Mary and Clopas, who many decided had to have been the children of Mary and Joseph--Jesus' blood siblings, not his cousins or other close relatives. We look outside the Bible for information on these children. And, we also give attention to what Mary herself said two-hundred years ago at Lourdes. Then we have Jesus presenting his mother to John as his mother; to his mother, he presented John as her son.

I understand your "possibilities", I do. I am not fighting to change your own conclusions based on what Paul said about all have sinned. I"m merely pointing out what another author--and someone close to Paul--wrote about Mary. Ding has presented purity as a reason God freed Mary from Original Sin. I've presented how, when Paul called Jesus (a man without sin) the new Adam, along those lines, some began thinking of Mary (a woman without sin) as the new Eve. In the Fall both man and woman sinned, but in the redemption God saw to it only a man was without sin...or, was there a woman without sin as well? What would be God's most likely course of action to balance the fall of mankind? Leave the woman hanging? Think of the times in John's Gospel, Jesus called Mary 'woman'. Read how Eve was described: Woman.

I've weighed all of this and for myself decided upon the possibility the early Christians voiced, the possibility that was followed by all Christians for fifteen hundred years, when another possibility was given voice. You've decided on this second possibility.

 

[Meriweather]

But my question was on what Leonardo's unblurred picture could have been. Explicitely, why would he blur John's physical appearance?

I don't know. An art major might be able to weigh in, or even better an art historian. I can associate Leonardo DaVinci with the Mona Lisa and the Last Supper, but off hand, that's about all. I never knew he blurred lines in his art work (not just one piece) and that he was known for it. Therefore, I wouldn't know why he sometimes did this.

So far you haven't said whether or not he had previous depictions of the characters or you envision their physical appearances being formed in his mind by rhetoric alone. Could anyone have passed on verbal evidence to him?

DaVinci painted The Last Supper in the late 1400s. I doubt verbal evidence could have been past on to a single man without it appearing in other places as well.

If you want my wild and uninformed guess, that guess is that DaVinci noted those who were--or who he thought might be--homosexuals. That might be a reason for his works blurring the lines between the sexes. Why might Leonardo think that of John? John was at the breast of Jesus (a place of honor) at the Last Supper. John never married. John often referred to himself as the disciple Jesus loved. Reading scripture, DaVinci may have jumped to his own conclusions.